Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

commons-research - Re: [Commons-research] Call for Papers - DRAFT VERSION

commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Commons-research mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Giorgos Cheliotis" <giorgos AT smu.edu.sg>
  • To: <commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Call for Papers - DRAFT VERSION
  • Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:14:22 +0800

Philipp, your suggestions are great.

First of all the names you are suggesting for possible chairs would
complement very nicely a chair from law. Ideally I'd like to have one of
these guys next to someone like Benkler or Zittrain as co-chairs. Why don't
you probe Rishab and Paul David? You could forward the draft CFP to them,
along with a link to this mailing list.

With respect to sponsoring researchers with limited funds, this is also a
great idea and once we have the CFP fixed we could go ahead with sending it
to relevant organizations with an appropriate request.

As for the peer review, like you said, it might be more appropriate to have
first a closed review process, and then all abstracts will be posted online
anyhow (perhaps on an icommons node). We can also think about letting the
broader community vote on those abstracts, but if they're already accepted, I
doubt that there will be significant motivation to vote for them. Perhaps
more appropriate would be to allow for comments to be written for each
abstract, so that each abstract can potentially become a discussion thread.

I am also fine with the additional research topic you have proposed, it is
anyhow close those already listed.


________________________________

From: commons-research-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of philipp schmidt
Sent: Tue 2/19/2008 4:42 PM
To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Call for Papers - DRAFT VERSION


Hi Giorgios:

Thanks for putting this together - I think it looks great. A few comments and
questions below:


On Feb 16, 2008 7:29 PM, Giorgos Cheliotis <giorgos AT smu.edu.sg> wrote:



*Chair*
The greatest gap currently is the lack of one or more workshop
Chairs, i.e. 1-3 people who will be members of the final program committee
but will also bear more responsibility with respect to the steering of the
workshop and should ideally be well-known personalities with a substantial
academic track record (keyword: "heavyweight"). I also feel that at least one
of them should NOT be a law professor, to signal that the workshop will be
multidisciplinary (even if many names that come to mind would come from Law).
Feel free to nominate one or more persons for this role, irrespective of
whether they are on the program committee list of this version or not.


I will throw out a few names, hoping that this collective network has the
means to contact/interest them:

Francois Bar, Karim Lakhani (might be easier since there are a number of
people based at Harvard), Charles Nesson

Paul David would be fantastic!

Rishab Ghosh (I can contact Rishab, and he could ask Paul David)

However, all male and based in developed countries ... it would be great to
have more diversity here.




*Sponsors*
Do we need sponsors? This could help in giving the workshop
additional credibility and financial support. (Do we really need the latter?
Possibly not). Can you help us get some sponsors?


I don't think we'd need them for credibility - but if we want to support
researchers from developing countries to attend, we might need sponsors /
donors to cover their travel costs.

OSI or IDRC might be interested in helping out. Once we have agreed on the
final version of the document, I am happy to forward it to contacts at both
organisations to test the waters.


Peer review:

I have been thinking more about our earlier conversation on peer-review. Has
anyone ever tried an open peer-review process, where all reviews (reviewers
can choose to be anonymous or not) are posted publicly along with the
submitted abstracts/papers? Did it (not) work? Maybe we could do something
like this for the accepted papers (only accepted papers to avoid someone
feeling publicly humiliated by bad reviews). Finally, other interested users
would be able to post their comments as well - agree or disagree with the
peer-reviews - but it won't affect the process of the "formal" peer review. I
think this would be an interesting way of opening up the process while
maintaining its core principles.

If we decide to do this, I would suggest the following changes:

(1) refer to peer-review as open peer-review in the document

(2) After this sentence: "Submissions to the academic research program will
be peer-reviewed by the program committee, based on their academic merit,
research promise and relevance to the workshop's goals and expected
audience." include
"Accepted abstracts along with the reviews will be posted on the icommons.org
<http://icommons.org/> site so that the broader free culture community has
an opportunity to critique and comment."


Additional Research Topic:

Modeling incentives and innovation in open collaborative peer-production

Best, P




<<winmail.dat>>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page