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.<br />However in this scenario:<br />-we may end up publishing more (duly signaled as such) crappy articles than we would wish, and<br />-we would be limiting the freedom of authors <br /><br /><span>On 03/27/12, <b class="name">Mathieu ONeil </b> <mathieu.oneil@anu.edu.au> wrote:</span><blockquote cite="mid: <11953_1332847666_4F71A430_11953_10894_1_7730b720608b9.4f71c004@anu.edu.au" class="iwcQuote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 13px; margin-left: 0pt;" type="cite"><div class="mimepart text html">Hi Christian, all<br /><br />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.__ "? <br />How do we stop people from pulling out? Sign a blood oath over the Internet? ;-)<br /><br />cheers<br /><br />Mathieu<br /><br /><span>On 03/27/12, <b class="name">Christian Siefkes </b> <christian@siefkes.net> wrote:</span><blockquote cite="mid:4F719C81.7040501@siefkes.net" class="iwcQuote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 13px; margin-left: 0pt;" type="cite"><div class="mimepart multipart signed">Hi Mathieu and all,<br /><br />On 03/26/2012 04:17 PM, Mathieu ONeil wrote:<br />> Openness undoubtedly has great virtues, but in the case of academic<br />> publishing it can also generate some bad side-effects.<br />> <br />> For this issue of JoPP five papers were sent out for review. Three of the<br />> papers will be published with reviews and signals. Two other papers were not<br />> great. Reviewers worked long and hard to address shortcomings and make<br />> suggestions.<br />> <br />> One author decided that it would not be possible to make these adjustments<br />> though much time kept being added.<br />> <br />> The other agreed to make changes but then used the time excuse as well as<br />> sickness.<br />> <br />> There is nothing preventing either author from now submitting their<br />> much-improved papers to another journal...<br />> <br />> In my view, we should try to address this obvious waste of reviewer (and<br />> editorial) work/energy.<br /><br />hmm, isn't this a problem of being (maybe) not open enough instead of being<br />too open? In the experience from my own academic this, this is a quite<br />possible scenario in the traditional peer review process: reviewers send<br />criticism and suggestions, the author might then revise the paper and send<br />back a revised version, or submit the revised version elsewhere. Especially<br />if a paper is re-submitted by multiple journals (after being refused -- with<br />reviewer feedback -- by each of them), it would cause reviewers a lot of<br />work. (Say if there are 3 reviewers per paper and you submit it sequentially<br />to 4 journals, you would already occupy a dozen reviewers, while none of<br />them would benefit of the work already done by others, since they don't know<br />about it.) Also, if you re-submit a text sufficiently often, it becomes more<br />and more likely to be accepted somewhere by pure chance, almost regardless<br />of the quality of the paper, I would presume.<br /><br />The only chance to avoid that would be more openness, not less, i.e.<br />publishing all versions of a paper from the first submitted one (or, at<br />least, the last negotiated version of each paper), without allowing the<br />authors to pull out. Not sure if we want to go this way, but blaming<br />"openness" for the shortcomings of the current approach strikes my as<br />definitively wrong.<br /><br />Best regards<br /> Christian<br /><br />-- <br />|------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian@siefkes.net -------<br />| Homepage: <a href="http://www.siefkes.net/" target="1">http://www.siefkes.net/</a> | Blog: <a href="http://www.keimform.de/" target="1">http://www.keimform.de/</a><br />|��� Peer Production Everywhere:������ <a href="http://peerconomy.org/wiki/" target="1">http://peerconomy.org/wiki/</a><br />|---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --<br />UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that<br />would also stop you from doing clever things.<br />������� -- Doug Gwyn<br /><br /></div></blockquote>--<br signature="separator" />****<br />Dr Mathieu O'Neil<br />Adjunct Research Fellow<br />Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute<br />College of Arts and Social Science<br />The Australian National University<br />email: mathieu.oneil[at]anu.edu.au<br />web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
</div></blockquote>--<br signature="separator" />****<br />Dr Mathieu O'Neil<br />Adjunct Research Fellow<br />Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute<br />College of Arts and Social Science<br />The Australian National University<br />email: mathieu.oneil[at]anu.edu.au<br />web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php