Message 00336 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00335 Message: 2/27 L1 [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] reviewing in practice

Hi Mathieu, hi all,

I will be very glad to help too. 

Unfortunately since Hull I haven't been able to catch up, but things are
going to slow down a little bit starting in the two weeks, so I will be
extremely happy to review the Johan and Nate pieces, as well as writing
something else in that stream (I refer to ANT in my work)



Il giorno lun, 03/05/2010 alle 11.40 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], Athina Karatzogianni ha
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Mathieu and all

Nice work, looking forward to the assignment of reviewers, I d be happy to
help, did you set a word limit for the reviewer (for example 500-800-1000
words) and a final structure of how that would be done (I am referring to
the two-tier structure and the idiosyncratic character of the journal)? it d
help to have a finalised template for reviewers to follow, some kind of
instructions which explain the practical elements of this and also a brief
explanation of the ideology behind it beyond referencing. If you have done
that, I ve been on the site it wasnt clear to me, can you resend the link to
follow for reviewing when/if you assign reviewers? I was also lost as to how
reviwers are assigned, do people express interest on a particular piece?

Sorry if you have answered all this, I might seem out of touch with this,
its been a really busy last couple of months



On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil>wrote:

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

After a period of regrouping and latency, get ready for a burst of
activity. I will shortly post a proposal for the journal site architecture,
hope yall like it.

But first, some informations.

Someone we met in Hull and Amsterdam is Nate Tkacz, who was one of the
organisers of the CPOV conference. As a result a dialogue started between
Johan Soderbergh and Nate on the politics of that strand of research known
as Actor-Network Theory (ANT). I am pleased to report that this dialogue has
solidified into two excellent short pieces. I am thinking of writing a
follow-up. These will soon be posted to the site for comment. They will be
for our "opinion" section so no need to formally peer review them. Nate
expressed an interest in joining us and after considering the enthusiasm he
put into this exchange I invited him to join our SC. So, welcome to our
newest member!

I ran into another CPOV organizer, Johanna Niesyto yesterday at a
conference in Paris and she reminded me of our invitation to them to write a
conference report. We decided the best way to do this would be to determine
a series of set questions (what did you try to achieve, best moment, etc)
that could then be asked to any other conference organizer for our "report"
section (1000 words max).
I just invited her to join the list, hopefully she will be interested,
otherwise we will discuss here and I will tell her.

Re. research papers I still have to formally ask reviewers. This is top of
my list. Sorry for delay.

Re. style for the journal I am leaning towards a more minimal approach. In
part this is due to seeing one too many super-slick powerpoint
presentations. Ultimately I find all the super-slick animations distracting.
We need it to be clean and striking. For the homepage I'm thinking all white
background with black and one extra colour text only. Small font. For
article space something like First Monday would be fine. Ultimately the
content is what will make this worth coming back to.

Thats all for now,


[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00335 Message: 2/27 L1 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00336 [Homepage] [Navigation]