Message 00581 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00565 Message: 16/38 L12 [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

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Toni and Alex

Well, I see your point about context and I agree in principle but I would argue that a review is a one-shot - you take less risks but you don't get a chance to revise it - whereas a draft sub is just that, a draft, could be full of mistakes, but you know there is a possibility to fix it later. So I'm concerned that making publication of drafts _mandatory_ would inhibit risk-taking..

That said, why not?... It would certainly make CSPP stand out from the crowd.


From: Alex Halavais <alex>
Date: Saturday, June 11, 2011 8:35 pm

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 
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 

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

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: joxT00565 Message: 16/38 L12 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00581 [Homepage] [Navigation]