[Commons-research] Fwd: Reviews

James Cairns maczomba at mac.com
Sat Mar 1 05:38:50 EST 2008


In keeping with the discussion at the iSummit planning workshop, I would 
second what Eve has said below.

Eve, you can subscribe to the list here:

http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research


James Cairns

philipp schmidt wrote:
> I had asked Eve for her thoughts on our conversation about peer review 
> (i admit, i was hoping she'd chime in on the side of "open"). 
>
> Her suggestion to have a session to discuss peer review is excellent. 
> We could look at the evidence for the advantages and problems of 
> traditional peer review, and how open approaches could complement or 
> replace it.
>
> P
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Eve Gray* <eve.gray at googlemail.com 
> <mailto:eve.gray at googlemail.com>>
> Date: Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Reviews
> To: philipp schmidt <phi.schmidt at gmail.com <mailto:phi.schmidt at gmail.com>>
>
>
> Dear Philipp
> I am surprised to find that I am not on this list as I had asked to be 
> included. I am therefore  coming into this discussion rather late.
>
> Although I understand the motivation for having peer reviewed papers 
> so that academics can claim subsidy and get brownie points for their 
> papers, I would remain unhappy about iCommons accepting too 
> uncritically this mode of traditional conferencing. This is a system 
> that has long been used to marginalise scholars from the developing 
> world. I have been a university press publisher and am only too 
> familiar with the pitfalls of closed review. Paul Zeleza has written  
> cogently of how this has been used to exclude African scholars even 
> from African Studies publication.
>
> So I would concur that a research thread at iCommons should look at 
> new rather than old models of peer review - of open review and the 
> more democratic peer review processes being used by PLOSOne for 
> example. In fact a discussion  on peer  review and conference modes 
> would probably be good.
>
> I am also unhappy at the idea of this being a traditional panel 
> discussion format. Sigh! Please can't we have a livelier discussion 
> format?I can read a paper but it is only at  the Summit that one gets 
> a chance to talk and engage with people.
>
> You are welcome to pass on my comments - and perhaps you can tell me 
> how one gets onto this list (not that I have time).
>
> A last thought - as I mentioned in another context in the last few 
> days, I think that a research track like this one should unhook itself 
> from an exclusive focus on licences and start looking too at the power 
> dynamics of global communications and what the Commons can contribute 
> there.
>
> Yours
>
> Eve
>
>
>
> On 26/02/2008, *philipp schmidt* <phi.schmidt at gmail.com 
> <mailto:phi.schmidt at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     This is an interesting discussion about how the research track at
>     the iSummit runs its peer review process. I am promoting "as open
>     as possible", some are in favour of the traditional model of
>     closed peer review with not possibility for others to comment, and
>     then there are a lot of ideas in the middle. I feel quite strongly
>     that the iSummit should be the place to experiment with open
>     models ...
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-research mailing list
> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>   


-- 
James Cairns
 
maczomba at mac.com <mailto:maczomba at mac.com> or james at icommons.org 
<mailto:james at icommons.org>
+27(0)833003350
skype: maczomba
 



More information about the Commons-research mailing list