Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

commons-research - Re: [Commons-research] open review model for upcoming workshop

commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Commons-research mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jon Phillips <jon AT rejon.org>
  • To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Commons-research] open review model for upcoming workshop
  • Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:17:05 +0800

Good question...will it be impacted by Prof. Lessig's move to Harvard?

Jon

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 11:44 -0500, Elizabeth Stark wrote:
> On a semi-related note, any news on the Stanford conference?
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Giorgos Cheliotis
> <gcheliotis.lists AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Philipp for the contribution to what has been a very
> quiet
> mailing list lately (but this will change as we should soon
> shift
> gears with planning for the next workshop/conference).
>
> Personally I don't find much benefit in such a move, but it is
> something to consider, if there is enough support for getting
> rid of
> the anonymity in reviews and enough strong arguments to back
> up such a
> decision.
>
> My thoughts are in the exactly opposite direction: if
> anything, I
> think this year we could try to go with double-blind reviews,
> which is
> the standard for many of the more serious events and journals
> in
> several academic fields, and for good reason. There are many
> such good
> reasons why anonymity is valuable in such situations where one
> is
> asked to judge the fruits of another's often long and
> painstaking
> labor, i.e. when we judge works that people invest a lot of
> time,
> effort, money and ego in. I think I do not need to list out
> all the
> possible scenarios where lack of anonymity can go horribly
> wrong and
> compromise the integrity of reviews, or, destroy relationships
> which
> are badly needed for any academic community to sustain itself.
>
> As for accountability, let's remember that the reviewers are
> never
> entirely anonymous. They are known to the chairs and to the PC
> members. I believe a certain degree of accountability is
> preserved
> under double-blind reviews, as PC members and chairs can
> control for
> each other's integrity as well as for the quality of submitted
> reviews. Both myself and Tyng-Ruey for example prompted many
> reviewers
> last year to improve the quality of their reviews, or to
> reconsider
> cases where we felt their reviews were not entirely fair.
> There was
> significant juggling involved in achieving anonymity as many
> PC
> members were also authors of submitted papers, but I think we
> did a
> good job, especially Tyng-Ruey who was in charge of
> coordinating
> reviews (as he had not submitted a paper himself, so had no
> direct
> conflict of interest).
>
> Now if an author feels that all of a PC is colluding or is
> otherwise
> corrupt, then that author may just as well avoid submitting to
> that
> venue and/or write a letter of complaint, or take whatever
> other
> action with respect to any specific claims that he/she wants
> to make.
> In special cases I'm sure a process can be followed to
> investigate any
> claims of unfair treatment of a paper. But I for one want to
> be able
> to call a poor paper "poor" and still be friends with the
> author. If
> my assessment is not sufficiently supported by arguments and I
> just
> call it "poor" for no good reason, the opinions of the other
> reviewers
> and PC members should weigh in and I should be called upon by
> them to
> provide justification for my assessment. But making the
> reviews public
> will not make me more accountable, it will make me more timid
> and
> perhaps in some cases less honest.
>
> Ok, well, these are my thoughts, sorry for the long post...
> let's keep
> talking. In short, publishing reviews for accepted papers can
> still be
> embarassing to all, as a paper can be accepted even with a
> very
> critical review. Anonymity aims not only at limiting the
> potential for
> public embarassment, it is more about safeguarding the
> relationships
> that we build with each other, as well as our ability to
> honestly
> critique each other's work. I have yet to see convincing
> arguments to
> the contrary.
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Philipp Schmidt wrote:
>
> > I am participating in an open peer review process for the
> Human
> > Resources for Health journal. I think something like this
> would be a
> > good model for the upcoming commons research
> workshop/meeting as it
> > would address many of the concerns about being too open that
> were
> > raised prior to the iSummit 2008. I am forwarding the
> instructions for
> > review, but have removed information that allows
> identification of the
> > article.
> >
> > The review state is closed to the public (I suppose to avoid
> > embarrassment of researchers whose papers might be rejected)
> but open
> > insofar as authors receive reviews of their paper along with
> the names
> > of the reviewers. Once a paper has been accepted all reviews
> (with
> > names of reviewers) and the paper are published online.
> >
> > Best - P
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: HRH Editorial <hrhjournal AT who.int>
> > Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:43 AM
> > Subject: Review of Human Resources for Health manuscript
> > To: Philipp Schmidt <phi.schmidt AT gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > Human Resources for Health
> > Methodology
> >
> > Dear Dr Schmidt,
> >
> > Many thanks for agreeing to review the above manuscript,
> which has
> > been submitted to Human Resources for Health. Please let us
> know
> > whether there is likely to be any difficulty in meeting the
> deadline
> > for your report, which is 28 January 2009.
> >
> > Below you will find instructions for retrieving the
> manuscript and
> > returning your report via our website. Please remember that
> the
> > information in this manuscript is confidential.
> >
> > As we mentioned in our previous message, we operate an open
> peer
> > review process for this journal in order to give peer
> reviewers credit
> > for their work and to ensure accountability. This means that
> we ask
> > reviewers to agree to their signed report being passed on to
> the
> > authors. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, your
> signed
> > report will be posted on the website along with the article
> and the
> > other reviewers' reports. We ask you to confirm that you
> consent to
> > this at the end of the peer review report.
> >
> > Many thanks for all your help with this manuscript.
> >
> > With best wishes,
> >
> >
> > The HRH Editorial Team
> >
> > Tel: +44 (0)20 7323 0323
> > Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7631 9923
> > e-mail: hrhjournal AT who.int
> > Web: http://www.human-resources-health.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Commons-research mailing list
> > Commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-research mailing list
> Commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-research mailing list
> Commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
--
Jon Phillips
http://rejon.org/
San Francisco + Beijing
GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884 - CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624
IM/skype: kidproto - Jabber: rejon AT gristle.org
BIO http://rejon.org/bio - CV http://rejon.org/bio/cv





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page