Message 00579 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00565 Message: 14/38 L10 [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] Debrief and clarification process

After discussing with Jonas we decided not publish the drafts of our
papers: this had the potential to confuse the status of a paper and
is really of interest to not many people. So I am proposing to drop
that requirement of the process.

That makes attribution to reviewers a lot more difficult, if not impossible. How do we know how the reviews contributed to the piece if the original submissions is not available? It also removes the context from the reviews, since they are reviews of the original submission and not of the final piece. Reading reviews without the original submission makes little sense, other than for the praising parts of it. What we need is the critique and the changes based on it made visible (there are mathematical journals that do publish drafts, we wouldn't be the first one).

The crux of political battle in theory is often visible in the space between the draft->reviews->finalPiece. To close it down is to close an opportunity to understand how peer review operates, what are its good and bad sides. Which is precisely what we need, an insight into peer review and into the processes of authorization of what gets called knowledge based on it being 'published' and gone through a peer review.

The most significant large-scale-research based evidence i found to support the claim that the need to understand peer review better is critical was British Medical Journal work. Let us not forget their conclusion (voiced by Richard Smith, BMJ director at the time): "it is little better than tossing a coin ... it is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts".

Can you at least elaborate how and why would publishing drafts confuse anyone? Why do you think it's not of interest to many?

i think this is critical point and deserves more attention and arguments.


ps. the published open process publishing papers is at

Thread: joxT00565 Message: 14/38 L10 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00579 [Homepage] [Navigation]