Message 00545 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
---|---|---|---|
Thread: joxT00529 Message: 9/12 L7 | [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] Hi all This reminds me of the Wikipedia trope of being able to "look under the hood" of knowledge production so that as Clay Shirky would say knowledge does not arrive fully formed by mysterious magic (like in alchemy) but can withstand the withering scrutiny of peers (as in chemistry, which had the same actors and elements as alchemy but was open to external review). In the context of CSPP, the problem is consistency. On Wikipedia all article histories and debates are archived by default. In our case if authors and reviewers can opt in and out of publishing first drafts and reviews, paper 1 may have no first draft and review A and C but not B, while paper 2 will have a first draft and review C only. My question is : (a) how useful is this scientifically and (b) won't this look kind of messy and reflect poorly on the journal? To be clear, I'm not against the idea - in fact we started with the assumption that reviews would be published, which may indeed improve review quality and it does make sense to publish a first draft as well - just concerned about the patchiness of what we end up with...? cheers, Mathieu ps. I'm also not clear whether we should let authors decide whether reviews should be published or not - maybe that should be a condition of article publication - that reviewers will have the option of publishing their review? From: Gabriella Coleman <biella nyu.edu>
Ditto. Biella On 06/05/2011 09:39 PM, Athina Karatzogianni wrote:[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] If the reviewers have the option to remain anonymous, andtheir comments notto be widely disseminated and the authors under review havethe option tonot have the reviews widely published and the first version oftheir papernot published, then I would agree with Toni's scheme ofthings. In whichcase, authors and reviewers should be clearly informed fromthe outset whatthe overall procedure is and what their options are (to remainor notanonymous, to have or not to have their comments published,and whether theoriginal version is published or not etc). Thanks Athina On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Toni Prug<tony irational.org> wrote:will it be mandatory to publish the first draft of essaycontributions?i don't think it should be. quite a few authors are a likelyto feelanxious about it, especially at the time where such culturedoes not existin the social sciences and humanities. however, we canencourage it andleave it to authors to decide. If peer reviews are publishedand the authorsreference them in the final published version, the points ofcontributions>> will be known. The actual magnitude, qualitative nature of contributionsmade by the reviews can only fully be exposed by publishingthe firstversion. Alternatively, we can encourage authors to note inthe footnotes abit more detail on how reviewers' comments influenced eachmajor changeapplied to the final published version. ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
[2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
Thread: joxT00529 Message: 9/12 L7 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
---|---|---|---|
Message 00545 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] |