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: Alek Tarkowski <alek AT creativecommons.pl>
  • To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Commons-research] open review model for upcoming workshop
  • Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:08:14 +0100

Dear all,

The issue on how to setup the peer review process requires probably more time and thought than I have right now... But two things came to my mind reading the discussion:

Regarding Giorgos's last post, I'm not surprised no one commented afterwards the abstracts. I don't think it's an issue of their length - it's rather that they are not as meaningful as full texts, in my opinion you only get a "feeling" of what the research / paper is about. Of course, experiments with online commenting prove that people don't comment too much at all (look for example at things done with the Commentpress system - a plugin for Wordpress - by the Institute for the Future of the Book).

Secondly, I am not sure about the argument that you need secrecy to have healthy relationships in the community. It's plausible to be critical without being offensive. I'm sure all of you do informal commenting / reviews for fellow researchers / friends - and in those reviews I'm sure you're sometimes critical. And it works. If the comments are sound, what's there to foul a relationship?

I am not hundred percent sure about this - secrecy of reviews is such an entrenched rule in our communities... The main difficulty I have with open reviewing is that people might review "too nicely" - but on the other hand blind reviewing allows for some level of un-accountability on the part of the reviewer...

Having said all this, personally I do not find this *the* most important issue - open reviewing is for me a nice addition to a portfolio of "experiments with openness", but even with traditional reviewing things work well (as proven by last years workshop). Though I think there is always a level of randomness (and thus unfairness) to every selection process.

Philipp, it would be good to know, how the open review process works for the editors and authors of the journal you mentioned.

Best,

Alek


--
dr Alek Tarkowski
koordynator / public lead
Creative Commons Polska / Poland
http://creativecommons.pl





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page