Message 00276 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00189 Message: 61/77 L9 [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]

[jox] Plone (was: Hull Meeting)

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi George, all

This seems like a good opportunity to re-address the question of the CMS. 

@Toni Prug: you may have missed a previous message I sent in which amongst other things StefanMn and I were wondering about how the parallel peer review projects you are involved in were progressing? We were thinking that if good progress was being made elsewhere there seemed little point in us "re-inventing the wheel" and that it might be possible for us to use any insights and architectures for our project? Thanks for advising.

@StefanMn: we should in any case prepare for the worst-case scenario (i.e., no immediate help from other projects) and set up a system to start moving. Two options: public or private. I have three submission proposals (one by me and two by others) that could be made publicly, on this list. If however we want to use George's texts, or as a general principle want to be private, we need to set up a private list or a private part of the site. Are any of these options feasible? Just to be clear this is not to set up something permanently, just a solution for now so we can start practising / playing with the review system.


As for experimenting with the peer-review process: as Mathieu 
wrote to the list, at the virt3c meeting Athina K. suggested 
(and all present agreed) to experiment with a few texts in order 
to identify any problems that may lie dormant in the overall 
direction toward which we seem to be steering the peer-review 
process (read 'signals') and see how these problems can be 
resolved. For that purpose, I offered to send the list a number 
of texts which were intended for publication in an online 
journal which i helped edit, but which were never published on 
that website. As a result, these texts have been in my archive 
for about five years. Also, I don't know whether they have been 
published elsewhere, online or offline, since then. What I am 
saying - since not everyone on the list was at the virt3c 
meeting - is that I do not have the permission of the authors to 
post their texts on a public mailing list (like this one) with 
the purpose to try out and fine-tune
 the peer-review process. This will have to be done on a 
non-publicly archived list where we can discuss the texts and 
the review process without causing any unintended embarrassment 
to the authors. Can we have a list for this? 



Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University
email: mathieu.oneil[at]

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00189 Message: 61/77 L9 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00276 [Homepage] [Navigation]