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: Kim Tucker <kctucker AT gmail.com>
  • To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Commons-research] open review model for upcoming workshop
  • Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:09:04 +0100

Hi all,

Would it make sense to conduct a peer production process for the
papers with on-going "review"/constructive criticism (e.g. on the
'discussion' pages of a wiki)? Comments and discussion may be signed
or anonymous.

Selection of the papers to be presented may be a function of the
degree of value-add during this peer production process which would
inform participants' ratings/votes indicating the quality of the paper
(on "voting day").

The on-going peer review/production would be open and optionally
anonymous/eponymous.
The rating/voting would be open (to reviewers and prospective
participants) and anonymous.

Kim

------------------
2009/2/19 Alek Tarkowski <alek AT creativecommons.pl>:
> Dear all,
>
> Giorgos Cheliotis wrote:
>> My gripe still is that in none of the arguments you or Horrobin
>> presented did I find actual support for the hypothesis that an open
>> and eponymous review process will generally produce better results
>> than an anonymous peer review process.
>
> Well, then we have, I feel a good opportunity for "research in action".
> This makes me think of a statement from James Boyle that I like a lot,
> about how we are overly cautious, or even affraid of openness, mianly
> out of routine - we are much more used to closed processes.
>
> If I may add to this discussion from a practical point of view (which
> might seem too "vulgar", I'm affraid, compared to arguments based on
> principles - and in a way rightly so). The peer review processes I have
> participated in have always been messy affairs. The anonymity is never
> perfect, as you just recognize some people by their work. Many other
> factors can be flawed - like the fact that some reviewers just don't
> spend enough time and energy; that there is no system for normalizing
> review scales and double or triple reviews are only a partial solution,
> etc.
>
> So knowing that the peer review process is not perfect in general, and
> that opening it, while not clearly beneficial, should not be destructive
> either - I think we should be brave and go ahead with an open model.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alek
>
> --
> dr Alek Tarkowski
> koordynator / public lead
> Creative Commons Polska / Poland
> http://creativecommons.pl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-research mailing list
> Commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page