Message 00546 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00529 Message: 10/12 L8 [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]
pps. Looking at the open access economics journal that Toni referenced I  see that not all papers have reviews (reviewers are identified, btw); however they  don't publish first drafts...

----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil>
Date: Monday, June 6, 2011 10:00 am
Subject: Re: [jox] Identity of reviewers
To: journal

[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...?



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>



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, and 
their comments not
to be widely disseminated and the authors under review have 
the option to
not have the reviews widely published and the first version 
their paper
not published, then I would agree with Toni's scheme of 
things. In which
case, authors and reviewers should be clearly informed from 
the outset what
the overall procedure is and what their options are (to 
or not
anonymous, to have or not to have their comments published, 
and whether the
original version is published or not etc).

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Toni Prug 
<tony> wrote:

will it be mandatory to publish the first draft of essay

i don't think it should be. quite a few authors are a 
to feel
anxious about it, especially at the time where such culture 
does not exist
in the social sciences and humanities. however, we can 
encourage it and
leave it to authors to decide. If peer reviews are 
and the authors
reference them in the final published version, the points 
contributions>> will be known. The actual magnitude, 
nature of contributions
made by the reviews can only fully be exposed by publishing 
the first
version. Alternatively, we can encourage authors to note in 
the footnotes a
bit more detail on how reviewers' comments influenced each 
major change
applied to the final published version.


[2 text/html]

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: 10/12 L8 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00546 [Homepage] [Navigation]