[Commons-research] open review model for upcoming workshop
gcheliotis.lists at gmail.com
Fri Mar 6 02:18:13 EST 2009
I've been following the comments on the review process with
interest... I will look at this again once the venue, date, format and
size of this year's event is confirmed; there's been a few delays with
that and in the end we'll have to settle for an approach that will fit
other constraints, including time constraints. In general I'm keen to
look at ways of adding some experimentation to the review process, as
long as it does not compromise the quality of the reviews or the
interests of authors or reviewers.
On Feb 19, 2009, at 9:09 PM, Kim Tucker wrote:
> Hi all,
> Would it make sense to conduct a peer production process for the
> papers with on-going "review"/constructive criticism (e.g. on the
> 'discussion' pages of a wiki)? Comments and discussion may be signed
> or anonymous.
> Selection of the papers to be presented may be a function of the
> degree of value-add during this peer production process which would
> inform participants' ratings/votes indicating the quality of the paper
> (on "voting day").
> The on-going peer review/production would be open and optionally
> The rating/voting would be open (to reviewers and prospective
> participants) and anonymous.
> 2009/2/19 Alek Tarkowski <alek at creativecommons.pl>:
>> Dear all,
>> Giorgos Cheliotis wrote:
>>> My gripe still is that in none of the arguments you or Horrobin
>>> presented did I find actual support for the hypothesis that an open
>>> and eponymous review process will generally produce better results
>>> than an anonymous peer review process.
>> Well, then we have, I feel a good opportunity for "research in
>> This makes me think of a statement from James Boyle that I like a
>> about how we are overly cautious, or even affraid of openness, mianly
>> out of routine - we are much more used to closed processes.
>> If I may add to this discussion from a practical point of view (which
>> might seem too "vulgar", I'm affraid, compared to arguments based on
>> principles - and in a way rightly so). The peer review processes I
>> participated in have always been messy affairs. The anonymity is
>> perfect, as you just recognize some people by their work. Many other
>> factors can be flawed - like the fact that some reviewers just don't
>> spend enough time and energy; that there is no system for normalizing
>> review scales and double or triple reviews are only a partial
>> So knowing that the peer review process is not perfect in general,
>> that opening it, while not clearly beneficial, should not be
>> either - I think we should be brave and go ahead with an open model.
>> dr Alek Tarkowski
>> koordynator / public lead
>> Creative Commons Polska / Poland
>> Commons-research mailing list
>> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
> Commons-research mailing list
> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the Commons-research