Message 00262 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00250 Message: 10/10 L7 [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]

Re: [jox] Signals _and_ Accept/Reject

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
[Hi Brian, no, you are still being blocked, not sure why, I will repost the error report at the bottom of this message. Thanks for explaining your position, good point about possible reputation costs for those who eschew signals. Cheers, M]

[ StefanMN: Brians' messages appear to be triggering a spamfilter, can you help? Thanks, M]


Hope this one arrives. In full choice the person concerned has the 
choice as to whether they want feedback or not. In our paper, Part II, 
we argued that authors can choose whether to be reviewed or just 
publish, and can also choose if they want community rating feedback or 
not.. It would self-correct, as non-reviewed and non-rated papers 
probably wouldnt get so much respect, so may not be read so much. My 
personal view is that one neednt force, it is just a norm, and it is 
better when people can choose, but of course it is also up to the KES 
community, if it wants to make it a community contribution requirement 
to keep standards. If so, it should be stated clearly when the author 
submits that  it will be rated, so it is still an author choice, but 
bundled with their submit choice. Also the community could make rating a 
submission requirement, but allow authors to choose not have commenting. 
The general idea of course is as much as possible to share control and 
evaluations among the community, but really its up to you.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Signals _and_ Accept/Reject
To: journal

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
[Brian Whitworth's response was killed by the spam filter, I 
think because he sent it from an unregistered address, "taboo 
header"? - reposting below, M]

[BW sez:]

Yes, actual control is only needed for heedless donkeys, and 
even they 
get warning signals before. This is how the world works. If I 
look back 
at seriously bad things that happened to me, I see that the 
actually gave me several warnings not to do that (which I 
ignored). So 
in an adult setting everything should be signals, from people 
and from 
the community. Only if community signals fail does"security" 
need to be 
called. In scientific knowledge exchange, honest feedback from 
others is 
critical to growth. If it is done democratically and 
transparently, the 
result will be better than letting an elite few control what is 
which can begin well but always soon decays. One has to trust 
people will be both honest and kind in their contributions, but 
there is 
no escaping evaluation. No community can afford to give its 
citizens a 
free lunch, because it doesnt itself get one from the physical 
around it. How a community rates a product, by "expert" reviewer 
representatives or by "market" general vote, is absolute. If it 
gets it wrong, it will fail regardless. The important thing is 
everyone is free to contribute, so a community acts how it 
really is. 
Power "warps" a community. Communities should always give choice 
their members because the world always gives choice to us. 
Giving and 
receiving signals is critical to making right choices.
all the best  in this endeavor

[Uh, he seems to be saying that signals are good, which most 
agree on, but as to the question of whether having unsignaled 
papers will muck up the system, we have to read between the 
lines... anyone feel like tea-gazing? ;-)]

----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:41 am
Subject: [jox] Signals _and_ Accept/Reject
To: journal
Cc: journal

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi George, all

The hermit awakes! Will sparks fly as they did a year ago? ;-)

@ Brian Whitworth: Brian, what do you think about the below 
idea: allowing people to choose between signals (used to be 
'ratings') and plain accepted/rejected articles? Would this 
introduces a dissonance in the system and an unwanted division 
in the articles? Or would it be OK, in your view?
Thanks for advising,


2. Regarding the *submission process*: although this might 
complicate> things a bit in the beginning (for both editorial 
team and potential
contributing authors), i agree with the idea of letting submitting
authors decide whether they prefer their submissions to be 
evaluated> > according to the accept/reject model or based on 
'signals'.> > 

[error message below:]

X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4-smerten_69 (2008-01-01) on
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=3.0 required=2.5 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
	*  0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP RBL: SORBS: sender is open HTTP proxy server
	*      [ listed in]
	*  0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines
	*  1.0 KW_STOCK_SYMBOL BODY: Talks about a stock symbol
	*  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
	*  2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
	*      [score: 0.4998]
Received: (qmail 21917 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2010 11:13:42 +0100
Received: from (
  by with SMTP; 18 Mar 2010 11:13:37 +0100
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2010 10:13:35 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2010 10:13:35 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2010 10:13:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 1216 invoked by uid 1000); 18 Mar 2010 10:13:35 -0000
Received: from by with SMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:13:35 -0700
Received: (qmail 65547 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2010 10:13:35 -0000
Received: from (bwhitworth with plain)
        by with SMTP; 18 Mar 2010 03:13:34 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: nF20M1SswBBo8UFf3KquYXiCMUe9qb8qbyyWfwcT2OOzQri1K_0-
X-YMail-OSG: yUxNmVUVM1kDCnjQfFgpJ0.wJL0Cpji31gZio7sOvqygS_qntJwXYyLG4kiAk0jl5xHOzAJeqgHA.34hDPNwrdzVb440kHUNPP9ZBaVBhfgnCbcB2wDXVZzoa8CAjm3EuFBBfvRyhl.XO3uYa7id3Y4VlWA8dStH3vpIpEAix11etx_OT5.dOVrtjrIcHERNv31gY_A0IYas.kkXwiLk1uIE2SPZQZxF1WWTaNq59yIcn03Pbzn__CysttTMWppPSpGL5hjvhyD6TNUDzskYy9NQ
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <4BA1FCC7.2030708>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:13:27 +1300
From: bwhitworTH <bwhitworth>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: journal
Subject: Re: [jox] Signals _and_ Accept/Reject
References: <4B8AB2E7.2060300> <12144.1268043083> <4B96DC29.1040000> <fb94fd2f14f21.4b977ae0> <324793.75965.qm> <5178_1268858513_4BA13E91_5178_40035_1_fbdf95501c65a.4ba1d92c> <fbc3fab51a31e.4ba27c09>
In-Reply-To: <fbc3fab51a31e.4ba27c09>
X-Envelope-To: journal 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00250 Message: 10/10 L7 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00262 [Homepage] [Navigation]