Message 00382 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00328 Message: 20/24 L12 [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] Clarification Reviewing Procedure?

[Converted from multipart/mixed]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all,

Two questions on review procedure.  Many apologies if I'm missing something, I've checked on the site
but can't find procedrues for the following...

i. I assume that authors are openly known to reviewers and vice versa?
But then are reviewers also made publicly known? 

ii. where/to whom do reviewers of papers submit their reviews to?  

much thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-journal on behalf of Mathieu ONeil
Sent: Tue 01/06/2010 17:59
To: journal
Subject: Re: Opinion section (was: Re: [jox] Suggested Site Structure)
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan, all

I think the term "opinion" is perhaps taking us down the wrong track: maybe "debate" is better. What that means is that while traditional research papers can stand alone, the shorter more polemic papers in the debate section would always feature two or more clearly distinct / opposed views on a topic related to peer production. 

That is to say, there would always have to be at least two authors involved in a submission to this format. So it would not necessarily be a response to a previously published research paper, it could be a new proposal. However if someone does want to respond to a previously published research paper then that paper could conceivably function as the first half of the debate pair. What matters to me is providing the opportunity for well-expressed disagreement on issues without necessarily having to go the normal length of a research piece.



----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: Monday, May 31, 2010 7:47 pm
Subject: Opinion section (was: Re: [jox] Suggested Site Structure)
To: journal

Hi Mathieu and all!

5 days ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Regarding Stefan's final point below there is no intention in 
having unstructured debates in the opinion section but simply 
these contributions would be 5 pages rather than 25 and most 
importantly operate as responses to other well-articulated 
positions or polemics rather than stand-alone papers. So really 
a lot more structured than the give and take of an email list 
where some contributions could be a few lines. Hope this 
explains a bit better the intention here...

So let's be clear here because this is very important to me: An
opinion always is a response to a published CSPP paper. Right?



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]

[2 application/ms-tnef]

Thread: joxT00328 Message: 20/24 L12 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00382 [Homepage] [Navigation]