Message 00337 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00335 Message: 3/27 L2 [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] HOWTO_peer review [was: reviewing in practice]

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Athina, Maurizio, all

Thanks for offers of help, appreciated!

Regarding the selection of reviewers: I asked two people on the list if they would like to review a submission, but they did not respond. I argued before that public calls which go out to “everyone and no-one” may not work so well because people may not want to discuss their availability publicly. 


In addition people may not read all emails to this list. So best practice would be a) public call for reviewers via the list followed by b) editor contacts reviewers directly, this is where we are at now.

In terms of the process itself you raise an interesting issue. So far we have signals which are really made for the final released version:

Normally some of the preliminary reviewing would be done on-list, collectively (in particular point 1 below). But in this case as we are practising in-house  the texts are being reviewed only by the reviewers. 

I had not thought of length limits, not sure if they are necessary?

In terms of questions here are some, adapted from what a journal I sometimes review for asks (some may recognize the questions):

1. Is this manuscript appropriate for Critical Studies in Peer Production? If not, can you suggest another journal that might be more appropriate?

2. Is the subject matter relevant?

3. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

4. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

5. Is the article well written?

6. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

If you or anyone wants to comment on these, please do so over the next week so we can then proceed.

@ Maurizio
The texts on ANT are not research papers but opinion pieces and so (in my mind) do not need to meet the same standards of peer reviewing outlined above, which are for research pieces. This does not mean that they cannot be commented on, or challenged – more on them later, still waiting for my proposed revisions to the second one to come back..



----- Original Message -----
From: Maurizio Teli <maurizio>
Date: Monday, May 3, 2010 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] reviewing in practice
To: journal

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 
writingsomething else in that stream (I refer to ANT in my work)



Il giorno lun, 03/05/2010 alle 11.40 +0100, 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 
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 
[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]

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: joxT00335 Message: 3/27 L2 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00337 [Homepage] [Navigation]