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: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:45:33 -0000
Thanks Melanie, Yes, you are right, I was suggesting a
hybrid model where we have two processes running in parallel, with some
intersection in what is made public. Cheers, Anas From:
commons-research-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:commons-research-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of melanie dulong de rosnay Dear all, Le 24 févr. 08 à 13:35, Anas TAWILEH a écrit :
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. I agree 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.
Anas, do you mean having both process in parallel: - a closed review by the programme committee, - and an open voting process on icommons website, which may designate
the 1, 2 or 3 favorite abstracts by the public community? It could be interesting to compare both results. Best, Melanie 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 mailing list |
-
[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
-
Message not available
-
Message not available
- [Commons-research] Fwd: Reviews, philipp schmidt, 02/29/2008
-
Message not available
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Anas TAWILEH, 02/24/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.