Message 00465 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
---|---|---|---|
Thread: joxT00448 Message: 17/44 L5 | [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] |
[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] my position is a little more elaborate than 'just do it', it is to focus on content first and foremost and deal with emerging issues as they emerge (as this conflict) but I really think that after 18 or even more months of preparation, the focus should be on pushing forward the production, review, and most importantly, distribution to the outside world such a long time may have been necessary to obtain consensus and develop the mechanisms, but I think we should now feel an urgency regarding content, independently of whether all formal issues are solved or not On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k gmail.com>wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi everyone, From Mathieu's email it seems (correct me if I am reading this wrong) that there are two central views here one coming from Stefan and one coming from Mathieu. [Michel's is to just do it and I would partially agree with that view, but we have to address rapidly concerns so they don not become insurmountable in the main editorial team]. One view which situates the internal working in the idea that this is a journal about peer production and envisions originality in certain areas (Mathieu); and another view that as well as being a journal about peer production the journal is a product produced in full p2p open collaborative mode (Stefan). Correct me if I am wrong in this understanding. I am probably stating the obvious, but a common denominator here is that both central viewpoints accept at least that a. this is a journal on critical studies in peer production, b. it would be pioneering to have at least a number of aspects adhering to peer production principles as well. I would suggest to Mathieu and Stefan to suggest which of the issues and difference of opinion they absolutely support and which they dont really care about that much, so we can find that common denominator and continue the project as smoothly as possible. Pick your fights in other words. To that effect, I propose a) Initial stage of submission process At this point for some reason most people are used to getting things from the email list and not visit the site much, unless they need to look into papers. So until they do visit the site, can we agree to disagree and for now do the weeding out and the discussion on the list, until people get used to going more to the site. b) posting of full submissions to site Between the views anyone can submit and only project members can submit, we can think of creating a depository in which anyone can submit, but the depository is not public and only the editorial board and perhaps interested members of the scientific committee can access to discuss what we do with the submission. If we find the submission relevant, we can then put it online and initiate peer review process. If the editor finds this ver time consuming the whoever insists on openness and everyone submits can also do the weeding out for us. c) communication of reviews to authors There has to be editors to act as mediators/buffers between authors and reviewers for reasons that are easily discerned (often there are vitriolic reviews and the editor has to calm things down for example and find a middle way out of the political/ideological or technical problem). Having said that perhaps changing editor every 2-3 years might also help keep things healthy, or if not taking turns, then coupling the editor whoever they are, with an issue editor like its been done elsewhere. It is a painful business having to curry this whole thing forward all the time, especially if you have to find and create consent out of thin air or guess at what people might want ideologically or what have you if there is delay in getting response or minimal interest at certain junctions. IMPORTANT: I would suggest that if Mathieu was assigned this editorship with Stefan providing operational and intellectual support through the oekonux, lets just let him get on with it and see where he is taking this, have a look at the first issue for instance before we continue this never ending discussion. Lastly, the easiest thing is to find a common theme for the issue Mathieu is preparing and I think that would help to focus content ( Andreas Wittel). BUT, our problem is not really of content here unfortunately, it is admin and operational, a problem of process. Therefore, I suggest lets have Mathieu have a go at organizing this issue the way he sees fit, lets support him if we can, and then we can comment and suggest improvements and counter visions after we look at the result of the work, give our peer feedback if you will. Cheers Athina On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.auwrote:[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi Athina, Nate, all OK, I will have a go at mapping the main points of consensus and disagreement. @Stefan: I tried to summarise your positions, apologies if I mischaracterised anything. @Everyone else: comments are obviously welcome but if you have not done this already please familiarise yourself with the existing version of the review process. http://cspp.oekonux.org/journal/peer-review I only mention problematic aspects below, there are parts which are left out. thanks. CONSENSUS There should be more precise and timely accountability of editorial actions. This should appear on list as well as on a special section of the site ("Editor's log"?). DISSENSUS a) Initial stage of submission process Mathieu: community vetting (via the list) of proposal summaries helps to weed out inappropriate proposals and provide authors with key missing references potential issues: cost of subscribing to list; cost of receiving too much email; potential misuse of ideas by outside parties before process is complete Stefan: authors should post proposals (and submissions?) to restrictedpartof the site potential issues: providing access to site to untrusted people (increaseinmonitoring costs?); no potential to weed out inappropriate submissions by the community; loss of community feedback as not everyone will check in regularly to see the latest submissions possible suggestion: creation of submission-only list? at the same time for me the list is an integral part of the whole project and helps bring the community (for lack of a better word) together;anyoneinvolved should really be interested in submissions; so not reallyconvincedby that idea. b) posting of full submissions to site Mathieu: project members potential issues: none? Stefan: anyone who wants to? potential issues: who decides?; providing access to site to untrusted people (increase in monitoring costs?) c) communication of reviews to authors Mathieu: editor acts as buffer to anonymise reviewers at this stage intheinterests of maximum frankness unperturbed by hurting personal feelings potential issues: lack of transparency; overwhelming nature of job? Stefan: reviewers post their review directly to restricted part site potential issues: inhibition of frank assessment for fear of offending authors => I think this is a core issue. => for authors the advantage of our system is that we are happy to publish a not-great article as long as it is rated or signaled as such. authors may choosenotto publish if they don't like their ratings. if all the review process is open from the start this key right for authors is removed. => role of the editor if we want to maximise reviewer honesty there needs to be a bufferbetweeenreviewer and author IMO: if reviewers and authors are agreeable reviewscanbe published after, anon. or not. As I wrote on the tech list this isalsoabout trust... If there is too much work with submissions (three so far, including onebyme - so not exactly a flood) then other people can come in to act as co-editors (already happening as Athina is editing my paper) => in conclusion I guess what all this boils down to is : is this project (1) a journal about peer production which attempts to use peer production and opennessasmuch as possible or (2) a completely peer production and open projectwhichhappens to be a journal? The discussions we had a year ago led me to believe it was (1). I think a complete application of transparency in reviewing would be harmful toreviewquality and remove key author rights. OTOH, once again, I agree there needs to better accountability and record-keeping. Hope this helps to move things along constructively. cheers, Mathieu ----- Original Message ----- From: Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:05 am Subject: Re: [jox] Chaos or transparency? To: journal oekonux.org[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi Mathieu, Stefan and everyone Reading this exchange I am wondering whether we can have a new beginninghere, a sort of blank sheet and restart by taking on board only what has been achieved so far, without any other useless baggage. A review process has been more or less sketched out, and it is clear and feasible at this point what this is, it has been debated for over 30 emails. We have reviewed some papers and have sent some papers for review so this is ongoing and soon we can have an inaugural issue perhaps.We have an editorial board, a scientific committee and a functioning site we can use to point people to what the journal is about and discover more things to utilise the site for; perhaps Stefan can oblige us by introducing us to what they are, so we can all use them. For an effort which started back in March in Hull and is mostly done through email, with a lot of transparent dialogue in a very public way, I d say these are considerable accomplishments. I would also like to say that we have all contributed a tiny bit to this effort, and Stefan and Mathieu most of all, and thank you loads for that. It would now be a shame to start throwing the toys out of the pram because we are getting tired of the seemingly long and tiresome admin usually involved in this type of projects. I think it is about offering a new platform, a collaborative project we can all build together, so it is not about who is chaotic and who is trasparent,or who is to blame for this and that, this is not a capitalist bureaucracy and no one should be worried about getting it wrong really, as no one is getting fired. Lets try and get along and see how we can make this work as well as possible, given that it is our own time we are spending doing something we like. Lastly, perhaps it would help if we can get on some kind of videoconferencelike skype, "rebond" and rekindle our vision on what this journal could and should be about for everyone involved. It's 1 am here so excuse the sentimentality..... Cheers Athina On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>wrote:[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi Stefan I think some of this is attributable to our very differentpersonalities> and styles - you are very thorough and I am very impatient - andconsequently to how we approach projects: you probably thinkeverything> should be documented in great detail, I am happy with what works andcertainly don't have the same experience than you withsoftware projects;when you do a magazine or journal (I've done several) youdon't need todocument everything in great detail; you just want to publishinteresting> articles.So upon reflection I agree that solely relying on the list todocument ourprocess is not optimal. I will try to use the site more.Though to behonest, I sometimes find it hard to navigate. What may seemperfectly> obvious and easy for you is not perceived in the same way by everyone.----- Original Message ----- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> Date: Monday, January 24, 2011 6:59 pm Subject: [jox] Chaos or transparency? To: journal oekonux.orgHi project! From all I saw so far from Mathieu he really prefers chaos. Or do you have an up-to-date overview over all the submissions andtheir state?Yes, that would be my last two emails on the topic...What we actually have is a mail by Mathieu once in a whilewhere hesays what he currently thinks the state of things is. And it feels to me that he changes his mind every week.This is interesting to say the least. Is there any evidence toback it up?Well, I learned that transparency is not only necessary fordemocracy> > but even more so for peer production projects (like I thoughtthis one should be an instance of). Therefore at least to me it isabsolutely> > crucial to change the situation.I tried to built the web site so it allows for maximum transparency on the one hand and fine-grained management of publicity of texts on the other hand. It is designed to have a comprehensible structure and to be easy to maintain - if you want it. From a technical pointof viewit is easy to have all this - if you want it.Sure. Like I said above, it may seem really easy to you, butto me someaspects are quite obscure. Frankly I find it quite clunkycompared to otherwebsite software I have worked with such as wikis (Wikipedia, P2P Foundation) or blogs (Wordpress); though it may offer sitemanagement> functionalities that these others don't.Well, things reached a point where I need to make a personaldecision.> > If the rest of the project agrees with this rule of chaos thenit is fine with me. However, I'll stop putting energy in this project.Guess what, I've wondered the very same thing over the lastfew months: canI keep working with someone whose reply to a direct questionin an email Isent may come in a week, or a month, or more. Everyone hastheir own rhythmand all, but this is the first time I've had that experience.To be honest,I have found this incredibly frustrating at times but havealways bit mytongue (until now) for the good of the project. I would neverpresume tocall this method of working "chaotic", maybe you can come upwith something?If you would prefer transparency, however, I'll try tocontinue topersuade Mathieu of solutions which build transparency as easy as a finger snip.OK, I'm all for transparency as well, though I can't helpnoticing that youwant submissions to be non-transparent. At the same time, I'mthe editor ofthe journal, so I get to select some reviewers and to tellpeople what Ithink about their papers. This seems to me pretty normal. I will obviously also be put in a position where some peoplecontact medirectly and I may acquire more information than everyone elseover specificissues. Then again I have always reported on everything thatwas going on.If you look around the Internet at webzines, onlinenewspapers, academicmagazines, I'd be interested for you to point me to an exampleof asimilarly open approach to editing a journal? I'm not sayingthere aren'tany, I'm just saying I really don't think I'm being that secretive. One thing I did wrong (and I'm not saying that was my onlymistake) was inrelation to George Dafermos' early suggestions for the reviewprocess: Iagree that I should have stated more clearly why I thoughtthey were not soappropriate (old, some already published elsewhere). Thesewere originallymeant to test the peer review process: but since then we foundoriginal> stuff to work with which we can actually publish. If George or anyone elsehas original material which they want to submit please do so. @ George (if you are reading): sorry for not dealing with this more transparently. So to sum up I agree to try to use the site more. For my part,I wouldappreciate a little gesture once in a while along the lines of"really busyright now, will respond to this email later". cheers MathieuComments are wholeheartedly appreciated.GrüßeStefan **** 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]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal-- 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 HU6 7RX T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790 F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspxCheck out Athina's work http://www.routledge.com/books/search/keywords/karatzogianni/ Russian hackers http://www.digitalicons.org/issue04/athina-karatzogianni/ [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal**** 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]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal-- 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 HU6 7RX T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790 F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107 http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx Check out Athina's work http://www.routledge.com/books/search/keywords/karatzogianni/ Russian hackers http://www.digitalicons.org/issue04/athina-karatzogianni/ [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
Thread: joxT00448 Message: 17/44 L5 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
---|---|---|---|
Message 00465 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] |