Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

commons-research - [Commons-research] Fwd: Reviews

commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Commons-research mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "philipp schmidt" <phi.schmidt AT gmail.com>
  • To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Cc: Eve Gray <eve.gray AT googlemail.com>
  • Subject: [Commons-research] Fwd: Reviews
  • Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:00:32 +0200

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>
Date: Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Reviews
To: philipp schmidt <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> 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 ...




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page