Guys, i've been occasionally following your troubles, and it
troubles me that i still can't help you. Many of your clashes
are due to the need for a structured system - at least it seems
so to me. The project i work on is now called gCommons, and it
has progressed a fair bit.
check docs on Journal product:
http://www.gcommons.org/docs/journal/tutorial-all-pages
We are currently making a transition to Plone 4 and then we have
couple of large jobs (journals/conferences) to finish. It's
impossible to tell when we will be able to offer you hosting,
but i'm hoping to at least be able to offer you a test instance
in a month or so. We do not have the main thing that
differentiates this journal: ratings (a feature i love to bits).
However, if you do like the project, perhaps we can find a way
to implement it together in in the second half of this year.
best,
toni
----
Open-process academic publishing piece has been published
http://www.ephemeraweb.org/journal/10-1/10-1prug.pdf
On 24/01/11 23:51, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Stefan,
I looked at your use cases again and don't find them that
specific either:
-who decides who gets to be a contributor and access the site?
at least with the list potential mischief is minimised
-how do reviews travel from reviewers to authors? completely
transparently? this can only inhibit candid reviews IMO
-I don't see why there could not be more than one method of
submitting, depending on how trusted you are (as I said before a
centralised tracking system would be better)
[Btw the reason I did not post my own submission yet is because
it uses footnotes - was meant for somewhere else - and I have
not gone around to changing the referencing system : I was
intending to put the Swedish file sharing paper up this week]
-re the mailing list it is described on the site as an integral
part of the process, I wont go into that again, I am not
"silently" changing anything, see the Toni Prug article which we
quote on the site about community vetting and feedback. everyone
gets to see it
-by the way, only proposals - summaries are supposed to be
posted to the list, so it makes perfect sense to post the whole
paper on the site
-I will post all research paper submissions (three so far) to
the website
-I will document better
-But I insist that there needs to be some confidentiality about
reviews - this can only be done because one person, known as the
editor, acts as an intermediary between reviewers and authors
-I suppose it boils down to trust. Do you really think I am on
a power trip or whatever? My only aim is to publish the best
content possible. If you don't believe me, what can I say
cheers
Mathieu
ps.
NOTHING IS "SILENTLY" REJECTED BY ME. NOTHING.
BECAUSE WITH RATINGS WE PUBLISH EVERYTHING.
THAT IS THE POINT OF THE PROCESS.
pps. More responses below>>>
----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten<smerten oekonux.de>
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011 6:59 pm
Subject: [jox-tech] Re: Unclear how the journal works
To: journal-tech oekonux.org
Hi Mathieu!
Last month (40 days ago) Mathieu ONeil wrote:
From: Stefan Merten<smerten oekonux.de>
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 9:20 pm
I put it there a year ago. See my post from 21 Dec 2009
23:58:59 on
[jox]:
http://www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/msg00214.html
I reviewed the use cases I wrote down then. Frankly I can't
see where
they are really different from your latest proposal - although
it uses
the site more than your process - though for good reasons.
So far you ignored this :-( .
In other cases it would be more constructive to outline
your
precise questions rather than asking me to compare the long
text
you wrote to what has been decided collectively.
Just one question: Where did "the collective" decide to put
submissions to? Really a simple question I can't remember
you ever
gave an answer to.
I don't know if that particular point has been decided after
collective negotiation or if it just emerged through common
sense: for example you posted your submission to the site as you
have access. Other people without such access can use public
access: email the editor or through the list.
At least you got my point that there is at least one point we don't
have a solution for. Good.
[Answered above]
From your reply I conclude that things like
* transparency
* management of publicity of a submission
* the option to get an overview over all submissions
really doesn't matter to you. IMO you prefer plain chaos. I'll get
back to this on the main list because this is a topic IMHO the whole
project needs to care about.
[Answered above - agree that we should have a more stable record]
Another precise question: Please describe the whole process
of a paper
going through the stages including all actors and all facilities
needed.
how about:
Ah answers :-) . Then here are more precise questions - if that
is the
way we can go on.
-idea of paper proposed to list (it should perhaps be
explained on the cspp site how to do this)
Well, anything which is done by the main journal list is
published on
the web. That way you publish each idea immediately. That
rejects the
fine-grained management of publicity I remember we decided to have.
[Answered above - benefits of community vetting]
This problem is not solved by sending it through the editor instead.
The option "through the editor" also rejects transparency. Nobody
knows what you silently reject and what not. It is also a
problem with
workload management of single people.
[Answered above - I dont reject, so far I have ASKED people to
contribute original, except for you, and I treated your
submission professionally - still waiting to hear from you
though, many months later]
Besides this the mailing list isn't open for anyone to post -
so the
whole proposal won't work at all. If it would we would have a spam
problem.
[?? can't anyone subscribe??]
Instead it is only open for postings of subscribers. Therefore
to make
sure that a proposal is recognized one has to subscribe to the
mailing>>list. Subscribing to the mailing list, however, is
usually a major
decision because at least I for one don't want to be flooded
by mails
From a mailing list I'm not really interested in.
[well if someone is submitting a paper they are probably
interested in the journal as well - but hey, we can just create
another submission list if you want]
This brings me to my next point. The mailing list is announced as
provides a common discussion forum for the
organizational>>aspects of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the peer production journal.
Caring about submissions clearly is not an organizational
aspect of
the journal. Therefore my understanding so far was that it
should be
limited to those peopls who are interested in the organizational
aspects.
[Answered above]
Your process silently changes the topic of the mailing list. This
requires that more people need to subscribe - at least
reviewers and
authors - and that all groups get mail they are not interested
in. Are
you *really* sure you want that? From my general experience
and the
main list in general I think this will destroy the mailing
list and
therefore the whole project.
[Answered above]
Also this doesn't allow for an overview. There is no single point
where someone can check what are pending proposals currently, what
happened to them and what their state is.
[Answered above]
If you ask me I'd consider your process as broken by design.
Thus IMHO
it is not possible to correct the process by small measures.
Instead a
new design is necessary. I made a suggestion you ignored for unknown
reasons.
But on the other hand you probably thought of all these things and
have answers ready. I'm really interested in them.
[Answered above]
b-list gives feedback
Even if we consider all the points above solved somehow: For the
"through the editor" solution it will be hard to manage
replies -
I
mean the feedback needs to go to the original author. From my
experience people nowadays are not careful enough to manage
`To:` and
`Cc:` for such a setup.
[Answered above - everyone gets it]
c-full paper formally submitted to editor or posted directly
to restricted part of site (if the author has access rights)
Again no transparency here if posted to the editor.
[Right, so we just let whoever post whatever to the site - as
opposed to posting to the mailing list?]
d-editor posts paper to site if necessary, approaches three
reviewers
Has been published already at this point through the mailing list
archive. No point in posting paper to the site.
[Again, only summaries go on the list]
e-reviewers hand in reports
By which facility?
f-editor provides this feedback to author
By which facility? Remember that we discussed that we want to
make the
feedback transparent as well.
[Yeah, after the review process is completed]
g-author (accepts or rejects feedback and) re-submits full paper
How and to whom? By what facility?
[That would be the editors role, I guess]
h-reviewers rate this re-submission
The only point you see a problem:
> [still undecided -> we need a way
to present the rating
system?]
i-author decides whether he/she is happy to publish with these
ratings
How?
[They tell the editor]
[You seem to think people will be OK with having their crappy
paper criticised in public - they may not - they may prefer not
to publish at all - this system gives them a choice]
j-article is published/not published
That seems clear - although it is published already long ago.
[no]
k-reviewer reports are published/not published (pending
author/reviewers agreement)
How?
[they tell the editor what they want to do or they publish them
themselvesm]>
[if you are worried there will be abuses of editorial power the
list acts a permanent forum for problems to be debated]
[i am trying to have openness and a good review system = dont
know how all reviews can be open from the start... people will
not be as frank IMO - we can discuss this on the main list if
you want]
l-if published: audience can comment; author can respond in
comments>>
At least I have an idea how this could work.
[still undecided -> we also have to determine if we publish
only as a webpage and/or as pdf?]
Given all the problems named above this is really a minor problem.
Grüße
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal