[JoPP-Public] Re : Re: Improving peer review for JoPP

Felix Stalder felix at openflows.com
Wed Mar 28 17:17:15 CEST 2012


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published, rejected, withdrawn) and I would order this reverse 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 at 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 at openflows.com
>> <mailto:felix at 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 at anu.edu.au
>>     <mailto: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? ;-)
>>     >>
>>     >> cheers
>>     >>
>>     >> Mathieu
>>     >>
>>     >> On 03/27/12, *Christian Siefkes * <christian at siefkes.net
>>     <mailto: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
>>     >>> 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 at siefkes.net
>>     <mailto: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 <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 at lists.ourproject.org
>>     <mailto:JoPP-Public at 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 at lists.ourproject.org
>>     <mailto:JoPP-Public at 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 at hull.ac.uk <mailto:a.karatzogianni at 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public at 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




More information about the JoPP-Public mailing list