[Commons-research] Call for Papers - DRAFT VERSION
giorgos at smu.edu.sg
Sun Feb 24 01:14:22 EST 2008
Philipp, your suggestions are great.
First of all the names you are suggesting for possible chairs would complement very nicely a chair from law. Ideally I'd like to have one of these guys next to someone like Benkler or Zittrain as co-chairs. Why don't you probe Rishab and Paul David? You could forward the draft CFP to them, along with a link to this mailing list.
With respect to sponsoring researchers with limited funds, this is also a great idea and once we have the CFP fixed we could go ahead with sending it to relevant organizations with an appropriate request.
As for the peer review, like you said, it might be more appropriate to have first a closed review process, and then all abstracts will be posted online anyhow (perhaps on an icommons node). We can also think about letting the broader community vote on those abstracts, but if they're already accepted, I doubt that there will be significant motivation to vote for them. Perhaps more appropriate would be to allow for comments to be written for each abstract, so that each abstract can potentially become a discussion thread.
I am also fine with the additional research topic you have proposed, it is anyhow close those already listed.
From: commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of philipp schmidt
Sent: Tue 2/19/2008 4:42 PM
To: commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Call for Papers - DRAFT VERSION
Thanks for putting this together - I think it looks great. A few comments and questions below:
On Feb 16, 2008 7:29 PM, Giorgos Cheliotis <giorgos at smu.edu.sg> wrote:
The greatest gap currently is the lack of one or more workshop Chairs, i.e. 1-3 people who will be members of the final program committee but will also bear more responsibility with respect to the steering of the workshop and should ideally be well-known personalities with a substantial academic track record (keyword: "heavyweight"). I also feel that at least one of them should NOT be a law professor, to signal that the workshop will be multidisciplinary (even if many names that come to mind would come from Law). Feel free to nominate one or more persons for this role, irrespective of whether they are on the program committee list of this version or not.
I will throw out a few names, hoping that this collective network has the means to contact/interest them:
Francois Bar, Karim Lakhani (might be easier since there are a number of people based at Harvard), Charles Nesson
Paul David would be fantastic!
Rishab Ghosh (I can contact Rishab, and he could ask Paul David)
However, all male and based in developed countries ... it would be great to have more diversity here.
Do we need sponsors? This could help in giving the workshop additional credibility and financial support. (Do we really need the latter? Possibly not). Can you help us get some sponsors?
I don't think we'd need them for credibility - but if we want to support researchers from developing countries to attend, we might need sponsors / donors to cover their travel costs.
OSI or IDRC might be interested in helping out. Once we have agreed on the final version of the document, I am happy to forward it to contacts at both organisations to test the waters.
I have been thinking more about our earlier conversation on peer-review. Has anyone ever tried an open peer-review process, where all reviews (reviewers can choose to be anonymous or not) are posted publicly along with the submitted abstracts/papers? Did it (not) work? Maybe we could do something like this for the accepted papers (only accepted papers to avoid someone feeling publicly humiliated by bad reviews). Finally, other interested users would be able to post their comments as well - agree or disagree with the peer-reviews - but it won't affect the process of the "formal" peer review. I think this would be an interesting way of opening up the process while maintaining its core principles.
If we decide to do this, I would suggest the following changes:
(1) refer to peer-review as open peer-review in the document
(2) After this sentence: "Submissions to the academic research program will be peer-reviewed by the program committee, based on their academic merit, research promise and relevance to the workshop's goals and expected audience." include
"Accepted abstracts along with the reviews will be posted on the icommons.org <http://icommons.org/> site so that the broader free culture community has an opportunity to critique and comment."
Additional Research Topic:
Modeling incentives and innovation in open collaborative peer-production
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 7483 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/commons-research/attachments/20080224/ef029e62/attachment.bin
More information about the Commons-research