Message 00539 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00529 Message: 4/12 L2 [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] Identity of reviewers

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

Does everyone agree with this?



----- Original Message -----
From: Toni Prug <tony>
Date: Thursday, June 2, 2011 11:14 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Identity of reviewers
To: journal

we publish it all: first version + reviews (leave to reviewer 
whether anon) + published version. Together as one document. 
Perhaps split in two docs, or individually as attachments.

Reviewing is work. Possible positives of rendering it visible: 
a) it leaves the trace of the peer production labour process; b) 
we give references to other works, similar logic should apply to 
reviews (if it leads to improvements in the final version, 
reviewer's points get referenced); c) it is likely to make 
reviewers take their work more seriously. In addition, if it has 
the above positive effects, reviewers have reasons to have it 
here's a journal doing something like this:

There are situations when publishing reviews might be against 
the wishes of the reviewer, we could leave that as optional.

The _immediate_ concern is: my correspondent raised the issue of
whether there is any benefit in publishing reviews which normally
would have been intended to fix an earlier iteration.
So do we publish reviews? Do we identify reviewers? Or do we just
indicate who reviewed, without publishing the review? Or stay anon?

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: joxT00529 Message: 4/12 L2 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00539 [Homepage] [Navigation]