Message 00451 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00402 Message: 31/39 L18 [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] Clarification: review process

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan

The role of the mailing list is based on suggestions made in Toni Prug's paper which aims to prevent inappropriate submissions by authors as well as provide initial community feedback to authors (did a proposal forget a key idea or author for example): 

"Our process is also informed by Toni Prug's [Prug2010] paper on community reviewing: all submission proposals must be made on our open email list. Prospective authors will then be told by our peer review community whether their proposal is appropriate for the journal and if any additional key elements are missing. Once authors have completed a full submission, they submit it to the editor who will assigns it to three reviewers."

So in a sense we have not seen any of the benefits yet as no-one has submitted a proposal to the mailing list (but how would they submit through the site? at least anyone can join the mailing list...)

It's true that there are costs involved:
-joining the mailing list, though its not that active and (to my mind, but I'm biased) not uninteresting
-revealing ideas to the world before they are fully formed: Prug says there should be some kind of moral obligation to not reveal stuff like that, though it is not easy to enforce. To me the risk is not that great, there are thousands of papers being published every year. Maybe all email messages should automatically display a "please do not quote" sentence?

So, while I'm not wedded to the idea, I like the openness it provides.
I also think this points to a bigger issue about documentation and the kind of project this is which you address in another email.



----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Clarification: review process
To: journal

Hi Mathieu!

Yesterday Mathieu ONeil wrote:
1. Authors are not anonymous but reviewers are anonymous.
People who submit papers can not be not anonymous since 
submissions are openly discussed on the list.

Why is this necessary? Shouldn't the ideas be protected from openness?

Hope this helps to clarify, please point out any issues.

The initial process IMHO is really broken by design. The key 
would be
to not involve the mailing list for this but use the site from the
start. In addition the mailing list has another purpose and IMHO 
it is
needed for this purpose.



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: joxT00402 Message: 31/39 L18 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00451 [Homepage] [Navigation]