Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

commons-research - Re: [Commons-research] isummit proposals coming in via pentabarf

commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Commons-research mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Alek Tarkowski <alek AT creativecommons.pl>
  • To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Commons-research] isummit proposals coming in via pentabarf
  • Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:11:02 +0100

Dear all,

I'd like to comment on the earlier discussion about the review process. I know I'm late, but I've been away and only now managed to read earlier messages.

I do not really understand why the research track needs a special review process. Just because it's something academics do? Can't we just use the standard process that will be used for the summit (whatever it is) - if it's good for the summit at large, why isn't it good for the academia? I assume that all summit contributions are expected to have a similar, high standard.

Similarly, I think that the arguments for a closed peer review process should be discussed: for example, Giorgos, you mention the possibility of humiliation. But in an open review process a) you wouldn't submit something you feel could be humiliating, right? and b) as a reviewer, you would not write a humiliating review, if people were to see that it was unjust or unpleasant.
Also, voting does not have to be immediately a popularity vote. It would be conducted in a community of peers, and reasonable ones, at that (I hope!).

I understand this might not be a good moment for experiments, but I agree with Eve that this is something definitely worth discussing. In my research institution we are starting a big project to introduce "open science" into Poland and the opening up of the review process is for us one priority (although this is definitely a long-term task!). At the same time, I'm not sure there'll be enough time to have a proper discussion on this - but a presentation on this would be great.

I would also support Eve in her criticism of taking the "academic" adjective too seriously. I think we shouldn't accept uncritically the basic academic format: panel with chair and presentations, followed by discussion. This is not a formal academic conference, we are not part of some organization or institutionalized research field - so maybe we should rather be thinking about a workshop, with a more relaxed atmosphere.

I also have a question that I haven't seen addressed (I admit I skimmed some parts of the previous conversation): If we go ahead with the peer review process, who will be the reviewers?

Cheers, and sorry for poking a stick into an anthole,

Alek




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page