Message 00346 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00335 Message: 5/27 L4 [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] HOWTO_peer review [was: reviewing in practice]

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Athina

In Hull we decided all research papers would be rated / signaled for this exercise. 
I think we could proceed like this:

1-reviewers review according to the criteria below (1-6)
2-authors dialogue with reviewers about this review: any changes, etc
3-reviewers rate / signal revised submission
4-authors decide whether they want to publish with given signal

Does this sound OK?

----- Original Message -----
From: Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k>
Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010 11:54 am
Subject: Re: [jox] HOWTO_peer review [was: reviewing in practice]
To: journal

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
hi all
mathieu what you sent sounds like the very usual questions 
reviewers are
asked bog standard by every journal, i didnt mean that, i meant 
taking us
through the two tier process (the ones to be rated and not 
rated) and the
idiosyncratic way we are supposed to identify what type text is 
and point
what happens to the text we review for instance the options of the
reviewers, publish, not publish, the public/private thing, 
whether they want
to be rated how do we do all that and who asks the authors i never
understood what was decided in the end

between seminars


On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Mathieu ONeil 
[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]

Dr Athina Karatzogianni
Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society
The Dean's Representative (Chinese Partnerships)
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
The University of Hull
United Kingdom
T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790
F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx

Check out Athina's work

Check Virtual Communication Collaboration and Conflict (Virt3C) 

[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: 5/27 L4 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00346 [Homepage] [Navigation]