[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published, rejected, withdrawn) and I would order this reverse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