[JoPP-Public] Improving peer review for JoPP
felix at openflows.com
Wed Mar 28 13:57:37 CEST 2012
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.
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 at 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? ;-)
>> On 03/27/12, *Christian Siefkes * <christian at 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
>>> > 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
>>> > editorial) work/energy.
>>> hmm, isn't this a problem of being (maybe) not open enough instead of
>>> 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
>>> back a revised version, or submit the revised version elsewhere.
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian at 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
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
--- 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
More information about the JoPP-Public