[Commons-research] Reviews

philipp schmidt phi.schmidt at gmail.com
Mon Mar 3 08:58:57 EST 2008

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Giorgos Cheliotis <giorgos at smu.edu.sg>

> I do agree with all of the recent comments, those who know me better will
> know after all that I am not at all the traditional stodgy academic :)

I am looking forward to meeting you to confirm this ;-)

> I would favor a mixed system whereby submissions are accepted based on the
> peer review (where peer means member of the academic committee), but I guess
> we can also post all extended abstracts (since we do not ask for full
> papers) online with the possibility for public voting and comments. Now some
> authors may not wish to have their abstract publicly displayed if they have
> not been accepted for presentation, so we can let them opt-in to the public
> review process, as they may receive helpful comments and make new contacts
> in this manner. Those who do not wish this (and there can be several reasons
> why) will not have their abstracts displayed publicly. Unless of course
> their work has been accepted for presentation, in which case their abstracts
> will be published online. In this way everyone may benefit from sending
> something over, but they are still given a choice.

> Still, when it comes to deciding on who should present I believe that the
> academic peer review should have the first word. Then, if someone wants to
> do an ex-post study on how effective this has been versus a fully open
> process, by analyzing the data on the committee reviews and on the public
> voting and comments, they are very welcome to do so, and we may change the
> format completely next year.

I think this is a good solution - let's finish the CFP based on this and get
it out.

Best, P

> Of course, all of the above is based on the condition that we will manage
> to finalize the CFP and we will get a decent number of relevant submissions!
> So please invite more of your friends and colleagues to join this mailing
> list and help us get the CFP out :)
> ________________________________
> From: commons-research-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Andrew Rens
> Sent: Mon 3/3/2008 2:45 PM
> To: commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Reviews
> Hi All
> I do think that we should have two parallel processes. "Traditional" peer
> review, in which reviewers identities are not known and there is some kind
> of academic qualification for reviewers, and an open process in which the
> wider community can both vote and comment. We could then compare the two
> processes from a perspective of what they regard as important, and also ask
> speakers to reflect on which comments they found most useful.
> The name of the author could be withheld in the parallel processes, and
> for both the criteria by which papers should be evaluated and commented on
> would be made available.
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-research mailing list
> Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research

Philipp Schmidt
University of the Western Cape, South Africa
United Nations University MERIT
E: phi.schmidt at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/commons-research/attachments/20080303/d77bdbb6/attachment.html 

More information about the Commons-research mailing list