Message 00416 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00388 Message: 11/20 L6 [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] Peer process (was: Re: Size of Merten / Meretz text)

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Mathieu and All

As I see it at this point, the text is returned to the reviewers after the
authors make what changes they think they can to meet reviewers' demands.
The reviewers respond to what has been changed/revised giving feedback, if
only to say thats fine by me etc. Then it is in the editor's discretion or
the editorial team to publish or not. If the reviewers or the editor request
further changes at this feedback point the cycle repeats I should think

I dont know if that is what you were asking for



On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil>wrote:

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan, all

Well, there _is_ a summary of the process:

My interrogation was because the following...

"Once authors have completed a full submission, they submit it to the
editor who will assign it to three reviewers. Reviewers are encouraged to
communicate with one another. Reviewers will provide any necessary
recommendations for improvement. Once the paper is completed, reviewers will
signal what they think of the final paper by using the following categories,

... is a little vague in terms of the relationship between authors and
reviewer recommendation, i.e. do authors have to follow the recommendations
or can they choose to ignore them and (presumably) get a worse rating after?
I guess that is up to the authors really. I have not heard from the reviewed
authors yet.



----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:26 pm
Subject: [jox] Peer process (was: Re: Size of Merten / Meretz text)
To: journal

Hi Mathieu!

6 days ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:
I was also hoping to get some feedback from the list on how to
get the peer process going.

Well, my main problem is that it is not written down somewhere
in a
concise form. Graham noted that he has the same problem. I think we
had a consensus on how to proceed so this is what is missing.

You said that you like to keep this stuff in the mailing list archive.
Well, to me it looks like this policy is one of the big
obstacles at
the moment. I'd like to recommend that you change your mind on 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]

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

China-Google article:

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00388 Message: 11/20 L6 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00416 [Homepage] [Navigation]