Re: [jox] Debrief and clarification process
- From: Amy Bruckman <amy.bruckman cc.gatech.edu>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:36:06 -0400
Hi guys. I'm sorry I haven't been participating... I'm not sure I entirely understand what this is yet since I'm not totally up to speed. But that said: One comment I often make on articles I review (especially ones from younger scholars) is that their tone is off--it comes off as insulting prior work, and there's no need to do that to make your point. If the whole process is going to be open, then it'd be nice to remind authors to watch their tone in the submission instructions. Cause there isn't that chance to fix it--it'll be part of the record.
That said, I can't imagine that anyone would bother to read drafts. (Who would care?) But we should very clearly mark any drafts as draft with a really prominent pointer to the final version so folks don't accidentally read the unfinished work when that wasn't their intention.
On Jun 13, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Alex Halavais wrote:
It would help me to understand the reasons, beyond vanity, that
someone would not want their draft published, as well as the reasons
that the journal would not want to mandate publications of drafts, if
reasons for the latter are different.
If, for example, there is a case where publishing the draft would
inadvertently reveal private information about the author or the
subjects of a study, then I can understand either redacting or not
publishing a draft.
Publishing as an option isn't really any different than most journals,
which permit you to do pre-publication archiving, and a smaller number
that permit post-publication archiving.
If part of the mission of the journal is to encourage peer-processes
that are open and transparent, the publication of drafts seems pretty
inherent to that process. Barring that, I would second Toni's
suggestion of mandating either drafts or a short explanation of why
the author is opting out of an open draft.
Would requiring draft publication reduce the number of submissions?
Yes, I suspect it would--at least initially. Would requiring draft
publication increase the number of readers and the ways in which the
journal was used, I feel certain it would.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au> wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
I agree - making draft publication mandatory is too much, better to strongly encourage it. I will post the drafts for the first issue in the way discussed before and include a header along the lines - "not for quotation, for background only".
----- Original Message -----
From: Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k gmail.com>
Date: Monday, June 13, 2011 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Debrief and clarification process
To: journal oekonux.org
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
On the question of encouraging the publication of drafts of
making such publication mandatory with possible exceptions, I
would go with
encouraging not making it mandatory.
The authors can declare this when they submit in the first
they want it published or not.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Simon Lindgren
OK, well I think this could be resolved by a clear
available data for each research paper:
- download article
- download signals
- download background information (original draft submission
this seems like a very good solution
Karatzogianni<http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx>Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society
The Dean's Representative (Chinese Partnerships)
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
The University of Hull
T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790
F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107
E: a.karatzogianni hull.ac.uk
Check out Athina's
Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University
// This email is
// [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
// [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
// Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur