[Commons-research] Reviews
melanie dulong de rosnay
mdulong at cyber.law.harvard.edu
Sun Feb 24 14:18:59 EST 2008
Dear all,
Le 24 févr. 08 à 13:35, Anas TAWILEH a écrit :
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I would vote for the extended abstracts, as this usually leaves
> some room for the development of the research, and would invite
> more researchers to submit their work.
>
I agree
>
>
> As for the discussion around the open vs. closed review process, I
> would like to see an open review, but not sure what is a possible
> mechanism that would facilitate this without the drawbacks
> mentioned by Giorgos.
>
> Could we, for example, have an open voting process, where the
> number of votes given to each paper is made available online, while
> reviews and critics are sent to each author individually?
>
Anas, do you mean having both process in parallel:
- a closed review by the programme committee,
- and an open voting process on icommons website, which may designate
the 1, 2 or 3 favorite abstracts by the public community?
It could be interesting to compare both results.
Best,
Melanie
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Anas
>
>
>
> From: commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:commons-
> research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Giorgos Cheliotis
> Sent: 24 February 2008 16:58
> To: commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: [Commons-research] Reviews
>
>
>
> Hi to all again,
>
>
>
> some of us (mostly Philipp and myself) have been discussing how to
> best organize the reviews for the academic program of the workshop
> being planned for the iSummit.
>
>
>
> Fist of all, what I have proposed on the draft CFP is to ask for
> the submission of only extended abstracts, not full papers.
> Naturally it's better to have full papers than just abstracts, but
> requesting for abstracts only would help focus the workshop on the
> presentation and critique of work in progress and would leave the
> presenters more room with respect to how they wish to present their
> work.
>
>
>
> If we stick with the above plan, then it follows that reviews will
> not be as thorough as they would be when reviewing full papers.
> Reviews would have to be based on whether the topic and method of
> investigation are original and relevant, and whether the work looks
> promising sand is likely to instigate fruitful discussions at the
> summit. These are to some extent subjective criteria (let's not
> forget that all academic reviews are relatively subjective), but I
> feel that this is not a bad thing. We will need to use some
> judgment in order to ensure a good mix of presentations.
>
>
>
> Is everyone on this list fine with the above, or do you feel that
> we should request for full papers (even if these are "working"
> papers)?
>
>
>
> Also, the review process I have suggested would be closed, like all
> academic reviews that I am aware of. The purpose of keeping reviews
> closed is to allow reviewers total freedom to express their views,
> without the risk of damaging the author's public reputation in case
> these reviews are negative. In the case of reviewing abstracts,
> reviews will likely be quite short anyhow and they will be
> communicated to each respective author individually, but they could
> still range from very positive to very negative.
>
>
>
> Philipp has been suggesting an open review process. This can be
> understood in two ways:
>
>
>
> (a) The general public can vote for favorite abstracts. This is
> reminiscent of reality tv shows and might be an interesting
> experiment, but I understand that this is not what Philipp has in
> mind).
>
>
>
> (b) The reviews are made by the program committee, but are
> published online along with the abstracts. This might be doable,
> but I wonder what would be the benefit of such an approach. I see
> the potential danger of either reviewers holding back on their
> comments because they would not want to embarrass anyone, or of
> authors being publicly humiliated by the publication of potentially
> very negative reviews.
>
>
>
> I would now join Philipp in inviting others to join in and
> participate in the discussion.
>
>
>
> Giorgos
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-research mailing list
> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/commons-research/attachments/20080224/f200045e/attachment.html
More information about the Commons-research
mailing list