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...
Best,
Alex
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Toni Prug
<tony irational.org> 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.>
-toni
ps. the published open process publishing papers is at
http://www.ephemeraweb.org/journal/10-1/10-1prug.pdf
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
//
// This email is
// [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
// [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
//
// Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur
// http://alex.halavais.net
//
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal