[Commons-research] Fwd: Reviews
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:
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.
> ---------- 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
> 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
maczomba at mac.com <mailto:maczomba at mac.com> or james at icommons.org
<mailto:james at icommons.org>
More information about the Commons-research