[JoPP-Public] JoPP-Public Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4

Fri Apr 13 23:03:51 CEST 2012

Hi Johan, George, all

Not clear to me what confusion? 
In any case I don't see why we can't have both; in my opinion a great advantage of the signals is that they exist, whereas comments by readers are
a) not yet technically implemented, and
b) if set up, at risk of staying empty for a while - not a good look.

Having myself been "signaled" in CSPP 1 I can understand the trepidation but reviewers were supportive / fair and - re Johan's point that people won't bother to figure out what the hell signals mean - I reckon that's part of our job, to explore alternatives and maybe change the way such things work. Won't happen overnight but you have to start somewhere?..

cheers
Mathieu

On 04/13/12, george dafermos  <georgedafermos at gmail.com> wrote:
> Makes sense. Maybe it's a good idea to get rid of signals altogether
> but, as johan says, give users/readers the ability to comment on the
> articles. Doing so would still encourage open criticism/discussion of
> articles while avoiding the confusion created by the signals system.
> 
> g.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Johan Söderberg
> <johan.soderberg at sts.gu.se> wrote:
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > A quick note concerning the signaling system.
> >
> > I dont have any strong opinions on how we implement the signals, principally because, I believe that we are tricking ourselves in thinking that the signaling system will push reputation costs from the journal to the authors. This is for the same reason that we are now pondering over how to best present the signals at the front of the webpage. The learning curve for readers is too steep, given the amount of time and attention they are likely to spend on internalising the new system. They will encounter our journal as they have learned to encounter any other, not bothering too much about the signals (wherever they find them, at the top or the bottom of the page), and definitively not sit down to read the short policy text where we explain our rationale behind having signals. Thus they will put all the reputation cost on the journal if they encounter a crappy article. That is my five cents. A readers commentary seems much more warranted, as that is a tried and tested method from Slashdot and elsewhere, recognisable to the readers, and it is useful for breaking the autocracy/arbitrariness of the two/three reviewers commenting on the article (a power only reinforced by the signaling system). Sorry for making this observation so far down the road, but it has become really concrete to me in the process of curating the special issue on hardware/bio-hacking.
> >
> > all the best
> > Johan Söderberg
> > _______________________________________________
> > JoPP-Public mailing list
> > JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
> 
> _______________________________________________
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/jopp-public/attachments/20120413/036bc41c/attachment.htm 