[Commons-research] Reviews

Giorgos Cheliotis giorgos at smu.edu.sg
Mon Mar 3 09:27:09 EST 2008


 
Philipp, 
 
did you contact anyone with respect to chairing the workshop? If it seems like a great responsibility and people are afraid of committing beyond their available bandwidth, you could also mention the possibility of being a member of the program committee.
 
Giorgos

________________________________

From: commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of philipp schmidt
Sent: Mon 3/3/2008 9:58 PM
To: commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Reviews


On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Giorgos Cheliotis <giorgos at smu.edu.sg> wrote:


	I do agree with all of the recent comments, those who know me better will know after all that I am not at all the traditional stodgy academic :)


I am looking forward to meeting you to confirm this ;-)
 


	I would favor a mixed system whereby submissions are accepted based on the peer review (where peer means member of the academic committee), but I guess we can also post all extended abstracts (since we do not ask for full papers) online with the possibility for public voting and comments. Now some authors may not wish to have their abstract publicly displayed if they have not been accepted for presentation, so we can let them opt-in to the public review process, as they may receive helpful comments and make new contacts in this manner. Those who do not wish this (and there can be several reasons why) will not have their abstracts displayed publicly. Unless of course their work has been accepted for presentation, in which case their abstracts will be published online. In this way everyone may benefit from sending something over, but they are still given a choice.




	Still, when it comes to deciding on who should present I believe that the academic peer review should have the first word. Then, if someone wants to do an ex-post study on how effective this has been versus a fully open process, by analyzing the data on the committee reviews and on the public voting and comments, they are very welcome to do so, and we may change the format completely next year.


I think this is a good solution - let's finish the CFP based on this and get it out.

Best, P
  



	Of course, all of the above is based on the condition that we will manage to finalize the CFP and we will get a decent number of relevant submissions! So please invite more of your friends and colleagues to join this mailing list and help us get the CFP out :)
	
	
	________________________________
	
	From: commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Andrew Rens
	Sent: Mon 3/3/2008 2:45 PM
	
	To: commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
	
	Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Reviews
	
	
	
	
	Hi All
	
	I do think that we should have two parallel processes. "Traditional" peer review, in which reviewers identities are not known and there is some kind of academic qualification for reviewers, and an open process in which the wider community can both vote and comment. We could then compare the two processes from a perspective of what they regard as important, and also ask speakers to reflect on which comments they found most useful.
	
	The name of the author could be withheld in the parallel processes, and for both the criteria by which papers should be evaluated and commented on would be made available.
	
	Andrew
	
	

	_______________________________________________
	Commons-research mailing list
	Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
	http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
	
	




-- 
Philipp Schmidt
University of the Western Cape, South Africa
United Nations University MERIT
E: phi.schmidt at gmail.com 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 6907 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/commons-research/attachments/20080303/fa40a280/attachment.bin 


More information about the Commons-research mailing list