March 2012 - JoPP-Public - lists.ourproject.org

Re: [JoPP-Public] Re : Re: Improving peer review for JoPP
by Mathieu ONeil 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

Hi all @Toni: publishing first drafts as a matter of course would be bold - and might seriously dry up the pool of subs. I'm not dead against it but feel we might need to get a few more issues out to build our rep more first. We already publish first drafts of published pieces and (AFAIK) are the only journal to do that... There's a point to be made about editorial comments which hitherto remain invisible contrary to reviews.. They vary in importance, sometimes just a passing-on-the-review type message, sometimes more substantial. Something to think about for sure. @Felix: OK, sounds good. We could have a top menu called "peer review" or whatever which would have as sub-menus a) a description of the process (current "peer review" page) and b) the "submission queue". Btw should there be "rejected" as a category - anything is publishable with signals...? Question: do we include the previously mentioned two papers who flaked out or do we give them a pass - they were not warned about this? @Franco: The site is down right now so can't access it, is there a problem? Thanks for advising. Also is there a tool to make tables with the following categories: Title, Author, Abstract, Date of Submission, and state (under review, published, rejected, withdrawn) cheers, Mathieu On 03/28/12, Toni Prug <toni.prug(a)gmail.com> wrote: > publishing all submitted pieces in a separate queue would be a bold > move, i wish all journals did that. Who wouldn't want to see what the > "highest ranked" journals in each field reject? Or, how they "guide" > authors to change pieces? Such openness would make political ideology of > journals a lot more visible. It would open up information to try to hold > journals more accountable in the long run, and more scientific in a > positive sense. As it stands, ideological rejection of "unsuitable" > texts, as well as submissions of terrible quality by authors, happens a > lot over the place. > > This is what was argued in my piece Open Process Publishing couple of > years ago: > > a) increase reputation cost by making every single submissions visible > in a separate, clearly marked, queue. > > "In the current system, with externally invisible submissions, the > reputation cost of submission for authors it too low: they can submit > any rubbish without adjusting it to the journal’s guidelines. The only > people who see these disrespectful acts (towards work of editors, > especially volunteer work), and who associate it with author’s name, are > editors. If submissions were openly visible, the cost of submitting > random, unadjusted, low quality, undeveloped papers would be far higher, > since such disrespectful behaviour would be publicly linked to the author." > > Here's what a journal that already does that said: > > "public peer review and interactive discussion deter authors from > submitting low-quality manuscripts, and thus relieve editors and > reviewers from spending too much time on deficient submissions. [..] The > deterrent is particularly important, because reviewing capacities are > the most limited resource in the publication process." (Koop 2006) > > A full open process model would make: > > b) all subsequent comments, reviews, versions, should be open too > > "To summarise, open-process academic publishing would amount to the > following being open: initial submission, editorial collective and > individual comments, peer reviews, further peer comments, author > comments back to reviewers, all the subsequent drafts, and the final > published or rejected text." > > I support any proposals that go a step closer to any of the above. > > Of course, there are valid arguments for a an in-between model too, for > partial openness of some of the publishing steps. > > http://hackthestate.org/2009/12/16/open-process-academic-publishing-v1-2/ > > > > On 28/03/2012 16:17, Felix Stalder wrote: > > > > > > On 03/28/2012 03:01 PM, Mathieu ONeil wrote: > >> Hi Felix, Athina, all > >> > >> I think this is a very good idea and I'd like to add to it. My first > >> suggestion is non-controversial: > >> -if the article is submitted somewhere else and published [and we find > >> out about it] we could publish a link to that versione > > > > Sure, but we want to publish original stuff, so that should not be an issue. > > > >> My second suggestion may be a deterrent for some authors: > >> -we could publish alongside titles, abstracts, outcome (did not publish, > >> etc) etc the reviews? > > > > Rather not. Reviews without the full article don't make that much sense. > > > > > >> Another question is where this would appear on the site. There would > >> need to be a specific page / groupe of pages. What would we call it? > > > > I would do a page called "submission queue" where we could list > > Title, Author, Abstract, Date of Submission, and state (under review, > > published, rejected, withdrawn) and I would order this reverse > > chronologically based on date of submission. > > > > Felix > > > > > > > >> cheers > >> > >> Mathieu > >> > >> Le 03/28/12, *Athina Karatzogianni *<athina.k(a)gmail.com> a écrit : > >>> Hi All, > >>> > >>> I wonder whether we can do what Felix suggests but publish in a > >>> separate place inside our site papers that didnt make it and have an > >>> archive that way of everything which was ever submitted to us, which > >>> is transparent. There might turn out to be lets say 30 papers over > >>> five years (i doubt there d be more than that) or whatever and we ll > >>> have a live record of this, if the authors who submitted them give > >>> their consent. We d have to get consent when they submit to us in the > >>> first place (in case this doesnt work out can we publish in the didnt > >>> make it archive?) Its one way to do it and we might be the first > >>> journal ever to do so... > >>> why not? theres plenty of space online to do stuff like that > >>> > >>> Athina > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Felix Stalder<felix(a)openflows.com > >>> <mailto:[email protected] <felix(a)openflows.com>>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm not sure if this is a good way, since we might end up > >>> publishing the > >>> crappy version, whereas others get the good one. > >>> > >>> But there could be an intermediary step. For example, one might > >>> publish > >>> a list with all submissions (Name, Title, Abstract, and date of > >>> submission) so it gets at least transparent if people are submitting > >>> here first, and the take it somewhere else. > >>> > >>> Felix > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 03/27/2012 02:29 PM, Mathieu ONeil wrote: > >>> > ps. I'll answer my own question: a way to do that would be to > >>> explicitly > >>> > state that a version of all submissions will be published, so > >>> that by > >>> > the act of submitting to us authors are in fact agreeing for us to > >>> > publish something. > >>> > However in this scenario: > >>> > -we may end up publishing more (duly signaled as such) crappy > >>> articles > >>> > than we would wish, and > >>> > -we would be limiting the freedom of authors > >>> > > >>> > On 03/27/12, *Mathieu ONeil *<mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au > >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au>>> wrote: > >>> >> Hi Christian, all > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks for commenting. I can't respond address your points straight > >>> >> away but I am curious about how you propose to implement this > >>> part of > >>> >> your proposal : "((publishing all versions of a paper from the > >>> first > >>> >> submitted one (or, at least, the last negotiated version of each > >>> >> paper))) __without allowing the authors to pull out.__ "? > >>> >> How do we stop people from pulling out? Sign a blood oath over the > >>> >> Internet? ;-) > >>> >> > >>> >> cheers > >>> >> > >>> >> Mathieu > >>> >> > >>> >> On 03/27/12, *Christian Siefkes *<christian(a)siefkes.net > >>> <mailto:[email protected] <christian(a)siefkes.net>>> wrote: > >>> >>> Hi Mathieu and all, > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On 03/26/2012 04:17 PM, Mathieu ONeil wrote: > >>> >>> > Openness undoubtedly has great virtues, but in the case of > >>> academic > >>> >>> > publishing it can also generate some bad side-effects. > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > For this issue of JoPP five papers were sent out for review. > >>> Three > >>> >>> of the > >>> >>> > papers will be published with reviews and signals. Two other > >>> papers > >>> >>> were not > >>> >>> > great. Reviewers worked long and hard to address > >>> shortcomings and make > >>> >>> > suggestions. > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > One author decided that it would not be possible to make these > >>> >>> adjustments > >>> >>> > though much time kept being added. > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > The other agreed to make changes but then used the time > >>> excuse as > >>> >>> well as > >>> >>> > sickness. > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > There is nothing preventing either author from now > >>> submitting their > >>> >>> > much-improved papers to another journal... > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > In my view, we should try to address this obvious waste of > >>> reviewer > >>> >>> (and > >>> >>> > editorial) work/energy. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> hmm, isn't this a problem of being (maybe) not open enough > >>> instead of > >>> >>> being > >>> >>> too open? In the experience from my own academic this, this is > >>> a quite > >>> >>> possible scenario in the traditional peer review process: > >>> reviewers send > >>> >>> criticism and suggestions, the author might then revise the > >>> paper and > >>> >>> send > >>> >>> back a revised version, or submit the revised version elsewhere. > >>> >>> Especially > >>> >>> if a paper is re-submitted by multiple journals (after being > >>> refused > >>> >>> -- with > >>> >>> reviewer feedback -- by each of them), it would cause > >>> reviewers a lot of > >>> >>> work. (Say if there are 3 reviewers per paper and you submit it > >>> >>> sequentially > >>> >>> to 4 journals, you would already occupy a dozen reviewers, > >>> while none of > >>> >>> them would benefit of the work already done by others, since they > >>> >>> don't know > >>> >>> about it.) Also, if you re-submit a text sufficiently often, it > >>> >>> becomes more > >>> >>> and more likely to be accepted somewhere by pure chance, almost > >>> >>> regardless > >>> >>> of the quality of the paper, I would presume. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> The only chance to avoid that would be more openness, not > >>> less, i.e. > >>> >>> publishing all versions of a paper from the first submitted > >>> one (or, at > >>> >>> least, the last negotiated version of each paper), without > >>> allowing the > >>> >>> authors to pull out. Not sure if we want to go this way, but > >>> blaming > >>> >>> "openness" for the shortcomings of the current approach > >>> strikes my as > >>> >>> definitively wrong. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Best regards > >>> >>> Christian > >>> >>> >

1 0

Re : Re: Improving peer review for JoPP
by Mathieu ONeil 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

Hi Felix, Athina, all I think this is a very good idea and I'd like to add to it. My first suggestion is non-controversial: -if the article is submitted somewhere else and published [and we find out about it] we could publish a link to that version My second suggestion may be a deterrent for some authors: -we could publish alongside titles, abstracts, outcome (did not publish, etc) etc the reviews? Another question is where this would appear on the site. There would need to be a specific page / groupe of pages. What would we call it? cheers Mathieu Le 03/28/12, Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k(a)gmail.com> a écrit : > Hi All, > > > I wonder whether we can do what Felix suggests but publish in a separate place inside our site papers that didnt make it and have an archive that way of everything which was ever submitted to us, which is transparent. There might turn out to be lets say 30 papers over five years (i doubt there d be more than that) or whatever and we ll have a live record of this, if the authors who submitted them give their consent. We d have to get consent when they submit to us in the first place (in case this doesnt work out can we publish in the didnt make it archive?) Its one way to do it and we might be the first journal ever to do so... > why not? theres plenty of space online to do stuff like that > > > Athina > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Felix Stalder <felix(a)openflows.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if this is a good way, since we might end up publishing the > > > > crappy version, whereas others get the good one. > > > > > > > > But there could be an intermediary step. For example, one might publish > > > > a list with all submissions (Name, Title, Abstract, and date of > > > > submission) so it gets at least transparent if people are submitting > > > > here first, and the take it somewhere else. > > > > > > > > Felix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 03/27/2012 02:29 PM, Mathieu ONeil wrote: > > > > > ps. I'll answer my own question: a way to do that would be to explicitly > > > > > state that a version of all submissions will be published, so that by > > > > > the act of submitting to us authors are in fact agreeing for us to > > > > > publish something. > > > > > However in this scenario: > > > > > -we may end up publishing more (duly signaled as such) crappy articles > > > > > than we would wish, and > > > > > -we would be limiting the freedom of authors > > > > > > > > > > > > On 03/27/12, *Mathieu ONeil * <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> wrote: > > > > >> Hi Christian, all > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks for commenting. I can't respond address your points straight > > > > >> away but I am curious about how you propose to implement this part of > > > > >> your proposal : "((publishing all versions of a paper from the first > > > > >> submitted one (or, at least, the last negotiated version of each > > > > >> paper))) __without allowing the authors to pull out.__ "? > > > > >> How do we stop people from pulling out? Sign a blood oath over the > > > > >> Internet? ;-) > > > > >> > > > > >> cheers > > > > >> > > > > >> Mathieu > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On 03/27/12, *Christian Siefkes * <christian(a)siefkes.net> wrote: > > > > >>> Hi Mathieu and all, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 03/26/2012 04:17 PM, Mathieu ONeil wrote: > > > > >>> > Openness undoubtedly has great virtues, but in the case of academic > > > > >>> > publishing it can also generate some bad side-effects. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > For this issue of JoPP five papers were sent out for review. Three > > > > >>> of the > > > > >>> > papers will be published with reviews and signals. Two other papers > > > > >>> were not > > > > >>> > great. Reviewers worked long and hard to address shortcomings and make > > > > >>> > suggestions. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > One author decided that it would not be possible to make these > > > > >>> adjustments > > > > >>> > though much time kept being added. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > The other agreed to make changes but then used the time excuse as > > > > >>> well as > > > > >>> > sickness. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > There is nothing preventing either author from now submitting their > > > > >>> > much-improved papers to another journal... > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > In my view, we should try to address this obvious waste of reviewer > > > > >>> (and > > > > >>> > editorial) work/energy. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> hmm, isn't this a problem of being (maybe) not open enough instead of > > > > >>> being > > > > >>> too open? In the experience from my own academic this, this is a quite > > > > >>> possible scenario in the traditional peer review process: reviewers send > > > > >>> criticism and suggestions, the author might then revise the paper and > > > > >>> send > > > > >>> back a revised version, or submit the revised version elsewhere. > > > > >>> Especially > > > > >>> if a paper is re-submitted by multiple journals (after being refused > > > > >>> -- with > > > > >>> reviewer feedback -- by each of them), it would cause reviewers a lot of > > > > >>> work. (Say if there are 3 reviewers per paper and you submit it > > > > >>> sequentially > > > > >>> to 4 journals, you would already occupy a dozen reviewers, while none of > > > > >>> them would benefit of the work already done by others, since they > > > > >>> don't know > > > > >>> about it.) Also, if you re-submit a text sufficiently often, it > > > > >>> becomes more > > > > >>> and more likely to be accepted somewhere by pure chance, almost > > > > >>> regardless > > > > >>> of the quality of the paper, I would presume. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The only chance to avoid that would be more openness, not less, i.e. > > > > >>> publishing all versions of a paper from the first submitted one (or, at > > > > >>> least, the last negotiated version of each paper), without allowing the > > > > >>> authors to pull out. Not sure if we want to go this way, but blaming > > > > >>> "openness" for the shortcomings of the current approach strikes my as > > > > >>> definitively wrong. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Best regards > > > > >>> Christian > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -- > > > > >>> |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian(a)siefkes.net ------- > > > > >>> | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ > > > > >>> | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ > > > > >>> |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- > > > > >>> UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that > > > > >>> would also stop you from doing clever things. > > > > >>> -- Doug Gwyn > > > > >>> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> **** > > > > >> 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]anu.edu.au(http://anu.edu.au) > > > > >> web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php > > > > > -- > > > > > **** > > > > > 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]anu.edu.au(http://anu.edu.au) > > > > > web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > JoPP-Public mailing list > > > > > JoPP-Public(a)lists.ourproject.org > > > > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > --- http://felix.openflows.com ----------------------- books out now: > > > > *|Deep Search. The Politics of Searching Beyond Google. Studien. 2009 > > > > *|Mediale Kunst/Media Arts Zurich.13 Positions.Scheidegger&Spiess2008 > > > > *|Manuel Castells and the Theory of the Network Society. Polity, 2006 > > > > *|Open Cultures and the Nature of Networks. Ed. Futura/Revolver, 2005 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > JoPP-Public mailing list > > > > JoPP-Public(a)lists.ourproject.org > > > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public > > > > > > > > > > -- > (http://www.routledge.com/books/search/keywords/karatzogianni/)Dr Athina Karatzogianni(http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx) > > Senior Lecturer in New Media and Political Communication > Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences > The University of Hull > United Kingdom > HU6 7RX > T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790 > F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107 > E: a.karatzogianni(a)hull.ac.uk > > > > > Download my work for free here: > http://works.bepress.com/athina_karatzogianni/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- **** 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]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php

4 3

Re: [JoPP-Public] Improving peer review for JoPP
by Mathieu ONeil 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

ps. I'll answer my own question: a way to do that would be to explicitly state that a version of all submissions will be published, so that by the act of submitting to us authors are in fact agreeing for us to publish something. However in this scenario: -we may end up publishing more (duly signaled as such) crappy articles than we would wish, and -we would be limiting the freedom of authors On 03/27/12, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> wrote: > Hi Christian, all > > Thanks for commenting. I can't respond address your points straight away but I am curious about how you propose to implement this part of your proposal : "((publishing all versions of a paper from the first submitted one (or, at least, the last negotiated version of each paper))) __without allowing the authors to pull out.__ "? > How do we stop people from pulling out? Sign a blood oath over the Internet? ;-) > > cheers > > Mathieu > > On 03/27/12, Christian Siefkes <christian(a)siefkes.net> wrote: > > Hi Mathieu and all, > > > > On 03/26/2012 04:17 PM, Mathieu ONeil wrote: > > > Openness undoubtedly has great virtues, but in the case of academic > > > publishing it can also generate some bad side-effects. > > > > > > For this issue of JoPP five papers were sent out for review. Three of the > > > papers will be published with reviews and signals. Two other papers were not > > > great. Reviewers worked long and hard to address shortcomings and make > > > suggestions. > > > > > > One author decided that it would not be possible to make these adjustments > > > though much time kept being added. > > > > > > The other agreed to make changes but then used the time excuse as well as > > > sickness. > > > > > > There is nothing preventing either author from now submitting their > > > much-improved papers to another journal... > > > > > > In my view, we should try to address this obvious waste of reviewer (and > > > editorial) work/energy. > > > > hmm, isn't this a problem of being (maybe) not open enough instead of being > > too open? In the experience from my own academic this, this is a quite > > possible scenario in the traditional peer review process: reviewers send > > criticism and suggestions, the author might then revise the paper and send > > back a revised version, or submit the revised version elsewhere. Especially > > if a paper is re-submitted by multiple journals (after being refused -- with > > reviewer feedback -- by each of them), it would cause reviewers a lot of > > work. (Say if there are 3 reviewers per paper and you submit it sequentially > > to 4 journals, you would already occupy a dozen reviewers, while none of > > them would benefit of the work already done by others, since they don't know > > about it.) Also, if you re-submit a text sufficiently often, it becomes more > > and more likely to be accepted somewhere by pure chance, almost regardless > > of the quality of the paper, I would presume. > > > > The only chance to avoid that would be more openness, not less, i.e. > > publishing all versions of a paper from the first submitted one (or, at > > least, the last negotiated version of each paper), without allowing the > > authors to pull out. Not sure if we want to go this way, but blaming > > "openness" for the shortcomings of the current approach strikes my as > > definitively wrong. > > > > Best regards > > Christian > > > > -- > > |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian(a)siefkes.net ------- > > | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ > > | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ > > |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- > > UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that > > would also stop you from doing clever things. > > -- Doug Gwyn > > > > > > > -- > **** > 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]anu.edu.au > web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php > > -- **** 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]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php

3 2

Re: [JoPP-Public] Improving peer review for JoPP
by Mathieu ONeil 27 Mar '12

27 Mar '12

Hi Christian, all Thanks for commenting. I can't respond address your points straight away but I am curious about how you propose to implement this part of your proposal : "((publishing all versions of a paper from the first submitted one (or, at least, the last negotiated version of each paper))) __without allowing the authors to pull out.__ "? How do we stop people from pulling out? Sign a blood oath over the Internet? ;-) cheers Mathieu On 03/27/12, Christian Siefkes <christian(a)siefkes.net> wrote: > Hi Mathieu and all, > > On 03/26/2012 04:17 PM, Mathieu ONeil wrote: > > Openness undoubtedly has great virtues, but in the case of academic > > publishing it can also generate some bad side-effects. > > > > For this issue of JoPP five papers were sent out for review. Three of the > > papers will be published with reviews and signals. Two other papers were not > > great. Reviewers worked long and hard to address shortcomings and make > > suggestions. > > > > One author decided that it would not be possible to make these adjustments > > though much time kept being added. > > > > The other agreed to make changes but then used the time excuse as well as > > sickness. > > > > There is nothing preventing either author from now submitting their > > much-improved papers to another journal... > > > > In my view, we should try to address this obvious waste of reviewer (and > > editorial) work/energy. > > hmm, isn't this a problem of being (maybe) not open enough instead of being > too open? In the experience from my own academic this, this is a quite > possible scenario in the traditional peer review process: reviewers send > criticism and suggestions, the author might then revise the paper and send > back a revised version, or submit the revised version elsewhere. Especially > if a paper is re-submitted by multiple journals (after being refused -- with > reviewer feedback -- by each of them), it would cause reviewers a lot of > work. (Say if there are 3 reviewers per paper and you submit it sequentially > to 4 journals, you would already occupy a dozen reviewers, while none of > them would benefit of the work already done by others, since they don't know > about it.) Also, if you re-submit a text sufficiently often, it becomes more > and more likely to be accepted somewhere by pure chance, almost regardless > of the quality of the paper, I would presume. > > The only chance to avoid that would be more openness, not less, i.e. > publishing all versions of a paper from the first submitted one (or, at > least, the last negotiated version of each paper), without allowing the > authors to pull out. Not sure if we want to go this way, but blaming > "openness" for the shortcomings of the current approach strikes my as > definitively wrong. > > Best regards > Christian > > -- > |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian(a)siefkes.net ------- > | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ > | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ > |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- > UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that > would also stop you from doing clever things. > -- Doug Gwyn > > > -- **** 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]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php

1 0

Improving peer review for JoPP
by Mathieu ONeil 27 Mar '12

27 Mar '12

Hi all Openness undoubtedly has great virtues, but in the case of academic publishing it can also generate some bad side-effects. For this issue of JoPP five papers were sent out for review. Three of the papers will be published with reviews and signals. Two other papers were not great. Reviewers worked long and hard to address shortcomings and make suggestions. One author decided that it would not be possible to make these adjustments though much time kept being added. The other agreed to make changes but then used the time excuse as well as sickness. There is nothing preventing either author from now submitting their much-improved papers to another journal... In my view, we should try to address this obvious waste of reviewer (and editorial) work/energy. One way of addressing this would be to say something like: -the critical reviews (which would have been published alongside the articles) might explain why they did not want to be published by us; -in order to prevent people from pulling out after they have been reviewed we need to improve the quality of their reviews; -this means we need to send out better papers for review; -in turn this means we need to weed out less-than-great papers before they are sent out for review. Since we now have an editorial team of six people the danger of one editor arbitrarily and unfairly deciding that articles are not ready to be sent out for review is lessened. But at the same time this is moving away from the initial spirit of the project (publish everything with signals). (This reminds me that Nate suggested to me a while back that a summary of signals need to feature much more prominently alongside research papers to make sure readers realise what we think about the quality of published papers...) So it seems clear that something needs to be done (I have already removed the reference to "list / community" feedback on the peer review section of the site as that never happened). The question is to what extent this is formalised...? cheers Mathieu -- **

2 1

Re: [JoPP-Public] Re : Re: Journal Website
by Mathieu ONeil 26 Mar '12

26 Mar '12

Hi Franco, all @Franco: great, thanks. Starting to fill out the blanks... I've filled in the people section in the about menu. If anyone needs to amend their affiliation please let me know. Not sure about how to qualify Franco's role so I put technical support for now. Open to suggestions. I've also filled out the peer review section. Will post on this separately. cheers Mathieu On 03/26/12, Franco Iacomella <franco(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > Hi! > > El 24/03/12 12:15, Mathieu ONeil escribió: > >Can you advise or help? - thanks. > > Yeap. Just fixed it. To modify the menu items, you need to go to Appearance > Menu (http://peerproduction.net/wp-admin/nav-menus.php) > > >Once "issue 1" is set up we can start to integrate content for it... > > The Issue #1 it's in the menu now. > > > Best, > > > > -- > Franco Iacomella > > -- **** 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]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php

1 0

Re: [JoPP-Public] Re : Re: Journal Website
by Mathieu ONeil 26 Mar '12

26 Mar '12

Hi all OK, I've made some changes to the JoPP website. Everyone can check out the proposed format for: -listing of issues: http://peerproduction.net/issues/ -table of contents of specific issues: http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-0/ Comments welcome. @Franco: Hope the design suits you, we can discuss otherwise. Also - I can't seem to manage properly of the categories in the top menus (about, issues, special issues) For example: I deleted a newly created but in fact useless category ("issue 0 contents") but it still appears in the top menu bar I can't seem to integrate "issue 1" into the "issues" category Can you advise or help? - thanks. Once "issue 1" is set up we can start to integrate content for it... cheers Mathieu On 03/18/12, Franco Iacomella <franco(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > El 17/03/12 13:09, Mathieu ONeil escribió: > > > >-Not sure what "epub" means? > > ePub its an open file format used for e-book readers and other devices. I think we need to offer the issues in that format since PDF is a format for printing and not for reading in electronic devices. > > >-If I understand correctly, you are talking about a system which > >automatically converts html into pdf? Thanks for confirming this. > > Nope. > > >That sounds great, but we would need to make sure the pdf structure is > >appropriate, ie looks like what we did for cspp 1 or at least not too > >different if possible. > > The PDF layout used in CSPP it's good for printing but really bad for screen reading. That's why we should provide ePub version or at leat, the OpenDocument version (that can be easily converted to ePub). The CSPP's PDF also lacks of important metadata information, like keywords. > > > >-Regarding the amount of files: I agree that there are a lot, but since > >this is an essential part of our opening up of the review process, which > >has been debated a lot by the group, I'm afraid we need to have all > >these files available - this only concerns research papers, not debates, > >comments or reports by the way so not too many articles really. So the > >question remains - can we fit all these files on one page? > > I get that, but I don't see any reason to have the reviews of each article published as PDF files. Why not to include them in an article's subpage called "Reviews"? > Eventually, we could add a "export to pdf" feature, but I think that the contents should be available in HTML as the first option. > > > Best, > > -- > Franco Iacomella > > -- **** 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]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php

2 1

Re: [JoPP-Public] Re : Re: Journal Website
by Mathieu ONeil 18 Mar '12

18 Mar '12

Hi Franco, all On 03/14/12, Franco Iacomella <franco(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > El 10/03/12 20:40, Mathieu ONeil escribió: > >§ Homepage: > >This page has a menu-bar at the bottom with the different categories > >(research, debate, section). > >We dont really need this any more as we are not grouping articles in > >this way. > > > >=> I can't modify this as this page appears to be blocked. Can you help? > >- thanks. > > To change that elements you need to go to Lustrel Options > Homepage tabs. > OK, will try - thanks. > > > > >§ About: > >-"Mission statement" should probably be renamed "Submission" as the > >mission statement part is already on the first page and there is a lot > >more content to be added which details the kind of submissions > >(research, debate, etc) which we are interested. > >-There is a page called "Participate" which should probably be renamed > >"Mailing lists" like this one: <http://cspp.oekonux.org/about/mailing-list> > >This could also include a link to the still active jox cspp list. > > +1 > > >=> Does everyone agree? I can't modify this either as all these page > >appear to be blocked. Can you help? - thanks. > > Since you are admin now, you should be able to modify it. > OK > > > > >§ Research section: > >As you can see from say > ><http://cspp.oekonux.org/research/mass-peer-activism/rs1.1-swedish-file-shar…>, research > >articles have a lot of different files - there is a summary, the pdf of > >the paper, the pdf of final signals, and pdfs of backrgound material > >(the original submissions and reviews). The way it was set up in Plone > >was by having different pages for all these pdfs but it might be easier > >(if possible) to have them all on one page. > > > >=> What do you think? > > I think that we should avoid that much ammount of files. I think that we should have: > - pdf, html and epub of each article > - pdf, html and epub of each issue > Several points here: -Not sure what "epub" means? -If I understand correctly, you are talking about a system which automatically converts html into pdf? Thanks for confirming this. That sounds great, but we would need to make sure the pdf structure is appropriate, ie looks like what we did for cspp 1 or at least not too different if possible. -Regarding the amount of files: I agree that there are a lot, but since this is an essential part of our opening up of the review process, which has been debated a lot by the group, I'm afraid we need to have all these files available - this only concerns research papers, not debates, comments or reports by the way so not too many articles really. So the question remains - can we fit all these files on one page? > > >§ Structure: > >I do need to return to the importance of having a page which gives a > >reasonably detailed summary of the content of each issue as FM does. > >Athina on this list and Francesca privately also agreed that this is > >necessary. So instead of the current content of the "Issue 0" page > >(which should in fact be the "Editorial") we should have something like: > > Ok, I understand your point now. I will try to work on this during next weekend. The final objetive is to have a page template that automatically generates this type of index per issue. > Great, thanks. cheers Mathieu > > > > Best, > > > > > -- > Franco Iacomella > > -- **** 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]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php

2 1

Re: [JoPP-Public] Re : Re: Journal Website
by Mathieu ONeil 14 Mar '12

14 Mar '12

Hi Franco, Athina, all OK, I've had a think and I reckon there are a number of points to discuss. (=> proposed actions.) § Homepage: This page has a menu-bar at the bottom with the different categories (research, debate, section). We dont really need this any more as we are not grouping articles in this way. => I can't modify this as this page appears to be blocked. Can you help? - thanks. § About: -"Mission statement" should probably be renamed "Submission" as the mission statement part is already on the first page and there is a lot more content to be added which details the kind of submissions (research, debate, etc) which we are interested. -There is a page called "Participate" which should probably be renamed "Mailing lists" like this one: <http://cspp.oekonux.org/about/mailing-list> This could also include a link to the still active jox cspp list. => Does everyone agree? I can't modify this either as all these page appear to be blocked. Can you help? - thanks. § Research section: As you can see from say <http://cspp.oekonux.org/research/mass-peer-activism/rs1.1-swedish-file-shar…>, research articles have a lot of different files - there is a summary, the pdf of the paper, the pdf of final signals, and pdfs of backrgound material (the original submissions and reviews). The way it was set up in Plone was by having different pages for all these pdfs but it might be easier (if possible) to have them all on one page. => What do you think? § Structure: I do need to return to the importance of having a page which gives a reasonably detailed summary of the content of each issue as FM does. Athina on this list and Francesca privately also agreed that this is necessary. So instead of the current content of the "Issue 0" page (which should in fact be the "Editorial") we should have something like: Issue 0: Mass Peer Activism Editorial Research: Mass peer activism Jonas Andersson, "The origins and impacts of Swedish filesharing: A Case study". Mathieu O'Neil, "The Sociology of Critique in Wikipedia". Debate: ANT and power Johan Söderberg, "ANT & Hegelian Marxism". Nathaniel Tkacz, "In defence of ANT". Mathieu O'Neil, "Domination & networks". Reports Johanna Niesyto & Nathaniel Tkacz, "Critical Point of View". Leonhard Dobusch & Michelle Thorne, "Third Free Culture Research Conference". => I am happy to do this, if you are OK with it. I realise that there are some smaller menus in sidebars on "Home" and the current version of "Research" but once again these only have section titles or article titles and I think it is the norm for research journals to have author/title. cheers, Mathieu On 03/10/12, Athina <athina.k(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hallo from Amsterdam wish you were here I am at the unlike us Facebook conference and it's cool > About layout a clear page with each issue in the usual manner is indeed better > > > Pass me the slippers > > > > > Athina > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 9 Mar 2012, at 11:19, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Franco, all > > > > First, thanks again to Franco for stepping up and helping us. He has done a great job. My concern with the current layout is that people will not get a sense of who has done what until they are on an article page. > > > > We experimented with the division in three parts - research, debate, reports - on the cspp site and agreed that it was not satisfactory because it gets confusing once you start piling issue upon issue - so a page clearly listing table of contents for each issue (showing for example sections, authors, editors, facilitators etc) following, or closely related to the First Monday model, is pretty important in my view. Alessandro raised this point a few weeks ago as well. > > > > What do others think? > > > > @Franco: is there a way to get to this? > > > > We can discuss this offlist more in detail if people think this is too technical but I thought it important that these design issues are given a public hearing as they tend to be hard to change later. > > > > cheers > > > > Mathieu > > > > Le 03/09/12, Franco Iacomella <franco(a)p2pfoundation.net> a écrit : > > > El 05/03/12 11:42, Mathieu ONeil escribió: > > > >Hi Franco > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > >I see you have begun to import content into the JoPP site - great, thanks! > > > > > > :) > > > > > > >Just a quick word to remind you that the "issues" page should be a table > > > >of contents a bit like: > > > > > > > >(http://firstmonday.org/issue/archive)http://firstmonday.org/issue/archive > > > > > > I modified the Issues page so it now list all the issues in a similar format. Just the title of each Issue is missing. > > > > > > >... where different issues would then lead to something like: > > > > > > > >(http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/view/356)ht… > > > > > > That is already there, we are not using OJS to display the issue content, so it wont look exactly like that. But I think our version is better, includes the TOC and download links for PDF and ePub. > > > > > > >If you can set this up I will start putting content in as well. > > > > > > Well, it's done. However, you don't need to wait to improve the page layouts to start adding content. Issue #0 is almost done, but "Research" section is missing content, so you can start there. > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Franco Iacomella > > > > > > > > -- > > **** > > 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]anu.edu.au > > web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > JoPP-Public mailing list > > JoPP-Public(a)lists.ourproject.org > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public > > > > > > > > -- **** 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]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php

3 2

Re : Re: Journal Website
by Mathieu ONeil 10 Mar '12

10 Mar '12

Hi Franco, all First, thanks again to Franco for stepping up and helping us. He has done a great job. My concern with the current layout is that people will not get a sense of who has done what until they are on an article page. We experimented with the division in three parts - research, debate, reports - on the cspp site and agreed that it was not satisfactory because it gets confusing once you start piling issue upon issue - so a page clearly listing table of contents for each issue (showing for example sections, authors, editors, facilitators etc) following, or closely related to the First Monday model, is pretty important in my view. Alessandro raised this point a few weeks ago as well. What do others think? @Franco: is there a way to get to this? We can discuss this offlist more in detail if people think this is too technical but I thought it important that these design issues are given a public hearing as they tend to be hard to change later. cheers Mathieu Le 03/09/12, Franco Iacomella <franco(a)p2pfoundation.net> a écrit : > El 05/03/12 11:42, Mathieu ONeil escribió: > >Hi Franco > > Hi! > > >I see you have begun to import content into the JoPP site - great, thanks! > > :) > > >Just a quick word to remind you that the "issues" page should be a table > >of contents a bit like: > > > >http://firstmonday.org/issue/archive > > I modified the Issues page so it now list all the issues in a similar format. Just the title of each Issue is missing. > > >... where different issues would then lead to something like: > > > >http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/view/356 > > That is already there, we are not using OJS to display the issue content, so it wont look exactly like that. But I think our version is better, includes the TOC and download links for PDF and ePub. > > >If you can set this up I will start putting content in as well. > > Well, it's done. However, you don't need to wait to improve the page layouts to start adding content. Issue #0 is almost done, but "Research" section is missing content, so you can start there. > > > Best, > > > > -- > Franco Iacomella > > -- **** 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]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php

2 1