[JoPP-Public] JoPP-Public Digest, Vol 3, Issue 6

[Mathieu ONeil]

Hi Johan

That is a good point (the risk of being flooded by shitty drafts assured of being peer-published) but in fact I forgot to say that since we now have an editorial committee there can and will be more upstream selection to weed out obviously unready papers... so only not completely shitty ones will be sent out for review in order to spare reviewer energy. So we wont be dealing with your bad scenario - no purchase to improve papers - as hopefully authors will be willing to improve their work in the name of science, truth, beauty etc.


cheers (from sunny Roma)


Mathieu

On 04/16/12, Johan Söderberg  <johan.soderberg at sts.gu.se> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mathieu, all the rest,
> 
> The ending of my mail got a bit strange, because I sent the mock-up and not the real one I had written. Oh well. I will only make one more brief response to your answer Mathieu, then I will leave it at that. 
> 
> >This does not mean that reviewers have no impact - in fact the radical openness (publish original subs, publish >reviews) ?may constitute a disincentive to publish as some authors may not wish to have it known how much their >original submissions needed revision let alone their low signals.
> 
> My understanding was that we would be LESS restrictive in accepting articles than a traditional journal, not that we would LET GO of all criteria and then use the signals as the sole means of distinguishing good from bad. If we go down this route, we will be swimming right against the tide of academic career-making. Think about it, what happens when anyone with a draft they cannot get published discover that they can send it to JoPP and put a peer-reviewed publication on their CV. The signals will be bad, ok, but the signals do not go up on the CV. The scenario of us being spammed by bad drafts is perhaps a bit extreme (it will take time for the 9-to-5 academic to find out about our journal, after all), but more realistic is that editors will have less purchaise when asking authors to spend another month of perfecting their text, just to (maybe) win another point in the signaling system.
> 
> I admit that I slept-in a bit during the earlier discussions about the peer review process on the mailinglist, so my sudden awakening to this discussion is a bit late in the day.
> 
> Johan
>   
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120416/0a6944f6/attachment.htm