| Message 00249 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thread: joxT00189 Message: 21/77 L6 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
| [First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
| [Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
Dear Mathieu and colleagues: My suggestions regarding definitions... A_Objective categories -activist (article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions) [original definition was indistinguishable from a 'critical study' and why only social injustice?] -academic (article follows conventions of academic research article -- e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution) [Makes this easier to judge and is not so pejorative of the traditional]-prospective (article is based on developments that have not yet occurred) -formalised (article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique) -language quality (standard of English expression in article is excellent)
[added expression] ...? B_Subjective categories -relevance (article addresses a significant issue) [Hopefully one only writes about issues perceived to be significant...perhaps relevance is linked to the scope of debate -- i.e. article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated] -comprehensiveness (most related sources are mentioned in article) [I hope this would be an invitation to careful selection rather than a demonstration of prowess in citation collection -- i.e. apt and representative choices made in source citations] -logical flow (ideas are well organised in article) -originality (the argument presented in article is new) [I would add 'evidence' as there are many established arguments for which the most valuable contribution would be further and better evidence. One could also split here -- conceptual originality / empirical originality] -commendations (reviewers wish to signal their appreciation of the article [I still think it most relevant to offer a brief statement rather than a check box here -- say 50 words. Failing that perhaps recommended to others 1 (only to those with a very specific interest) to 10 (essential knowledge for all)? Perhaps this is another category -- salience? Best regards, Ed Steinmueller Mathieu ONeil wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi all Here is a stab at establishing and defining ways to signal what we think of published articles, based on our original list modified following last week's interventions. Please criticise and improve as you see fit. =-=-=<!-- @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> <!-- @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> A_Objective categories-activist (article proposes a critique of social injustice and/or a normative solution) -academic (article corresponds to typical academic research article)-prospective (article is based on developments that have not yet occurred) -formalised (article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique) -language quality (standard of English in article is excellent)...?B_Subjective categories-relevance (article addresses a significant issue) -comprehesiveness (most related sources are mentioned in article) -logical flow (ideas are well organised in article) -originality (the argument presented in article is new) -commendations (reviewers wish to signal their appreciation of the article...?=-=-= cheers, Mathieu [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
| Thread: joxT00189 Message: 21/77 L6 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Message 00249 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |