commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Commons-research mailing list
List archive
- From: "Anas TAWILEH" <anas AT tawileh.net>
- To: <commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Reviews
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:35:56 -0000
Dear all, I would vote for the extended abstracts,
as this usually leaves some room for the development of the research, and would
invite more researchers to submit their work. As for the discussion around the open vs.
closed review process, I would like to see an open review, but not sure what is
a possible mechanism that would facilitate this without the drawbacks mentioned
by Giorgos. Could we, for example, have an open voting process, where the number
of votes given to each paper is made available online, while reviews and critics
are sent to each author individually? What do you think? Anas From:
commons-research-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:commons-research-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Giorgos Cheliotis Hi to all again, some of us (mostly Philipp and myself) have been
discussing how to best organize the reviews for the academic program of the
workshop being planned for the iSummit. Fist of all, what I have proposed on the draft CFP is to ask
for the submission of only extended abstracts, not full papers. Naturally it's
better to have full papers than just abstracts, but requesting for abstracts
only would help focus the workshop on the presentation and critique of work in
progress and would leave the presenters more room with respect to how they wish
to present their work. If we stick with the above plan, then it follows that
reviews will not be as thorough as they would be when reviewing full papers.
Reviews would have to be based on whether the topic and method of investigation
are original and relevant, and whether the work looks promising sand is likely
to instigate fruitful discussions at the summit. These are to some extent
subjective criteria (let's not forget that all academic reviews are relatively
subjective), but I feel that this is not a bad thing. We will need to use some
judgment in order to ensure a good mix of presentations. Is everyone on this list fine with the above, or do you feel
that we should request for full papers (even if these are "working"
papers)? Also, the review process I have suggested would be closed,
like all academic reviews that I am aware of. The purpose of keeping reviews
closed is to allow reviewers total freedom to express their views, without the
risk of damaging the author's public reputation in case these reviews are
negative. In the case of reviewing abstracts, reviews will likely be quite
short anyhow and they will be communicated to each respective author
individually, but they could still range from very positive to very negative. Philipp has been suggesting an open review process. This can
be understood in two ways: (a) The general public can vote for favorite abstracts. This
is reminiscent of reality tv shows and might be an interesting experiment, but
I understand that this is not what Philipp has in mind). (b) The reviews are made by the program committee, but are
published online along with the abstracts. This might be doable, but I wonder
what would be the benefit of such an approach. I see the potential danger of
either reviewers holding back on their comments because they would not want to
embarrass anyone, or of authors being publicly humiliated by the
publication of potentially very negative reviews. I would now join Philipp in inviting others to join in
and participate in the discussion. Giorgos |
-
[Commons-research] Reviews,
Giorgos Cheliotis, 02/24/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Anas TAWILEH, 02/24/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
melanie dulong de rosnay, 02/24/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Anas TAWILEH, 02/25/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Giorgos Cheliotis, 02/28/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Gavin Baker, 02/28/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
James Cairns, 02/28/2008
- Re: [Commons-research] Reviews, Giorgos Cheliotis, 02/29/2008
- Re: [Commons-research] Reviews, James Cairns, 02/29/2008
- Re: [Commons-research] Reviews, Giorgos Cheliotis, 02/29/2008
- Re: [Commons-research] Reviews, James Cairns, 02/29/2008
- Re: [Commons-research] Reviews, Gavin Baker, 02/29/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
James Cairns, 02/28/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Gavin Baker, 02/28/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Giorgos Cheliotis, 02/28/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Anas TAWILEH, 02/25/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
melanie dulong de rosnay, 02/24/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Anas TAWILEH, 02/24/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.