Message 00580 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00565 Message: 15/38 L11 [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

I'd tend to agree. As I said, I'm not completely comfortable with my
review being published (I notice, among other things, at least one
typo :), but that discomfort is largely a matter of the challenge of
getting out of a rut.

I didn't do a great review, but without the text it's reviewing, I
don't think it would be very useful. I won't go so far as to say
"don't publish my review," since I've already agreed to having it
published, but part of the promise of the journal is opening up this
process, and I'd be disappointed if this was done without reference to
the evolution of the articles.

I can imagine cases where an exception might be made, but not many. I
think it's good to see the process in action. If there is potential
for confusion as to which version is the final, this can be mitigated
by clear labeling and linking from draft to review to final AND from
final to review to draft...



On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Toni Prug <tony> wrote:
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

// This email is
// [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
// [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
// Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur

Thread: joxT00565 Message: 15/38 L11 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00580 [Homepage] [Navigation]