Message 00733 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00680 Message: 6/13 L5 [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] Re: Inclusion in SC

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan,

Well, the way I phrased the question pretty much showed that I was not in favour of continuing the solo practice (which I think was 100% justified in the early stages to reach a reasonable number quickly). In any case things happened naturally and as they should : Jakob introduced himself, said what he wanted to do and we had a nice discussion. Since no-one objected I have created an account for him.

I guess these requirements (self-presentation and plans/interests) could be formalised at some point (alongside the need for a sponsor to introduce people?) and can then be written on the site.



On 08/29/11, Stefan Merten  <smerten> wrote:
Hi Mathieu!

Last week (9 days ago) Mathieu ONeil wrote:
So, do we want to have the editor inviting people pretty much as before, based on personal assessment that the person would be a worthwhile addition as a reviewer and participant?

Well, I feel that the direction the journal takes is constantly at
stake. Adding people who nobody knows but you feels to me like a
rather subtle way to influence this direction. To be very friendly: In
fact that is something I'm really unhappy with for quite some time

My suggestion would be that nobody is added to this list anonymously.
IMHO everyone added needs to introduce herself/himself. May be we
could have a couple of questions for everyone to answer.



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: joxT00680 Message: 6/13 L5 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00733 [Homepage] [Navigation]