commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Commons-research mailing list
List archive
- From: "Andrew Rens" <andrewrens AT gmail.com>
- To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Reviews
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:45:26 +0200
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
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Andrew Rens, 03/03/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Giorgos Cheliotis, 03/03/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
philipp schmidt, 03/03/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Giorgos Cheliotis, 03/03/2008
- Re: [Commons-research] Reviews, philipp schmidt, 03/03/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Giorgos Cheliotis, 03/03/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
philipp schmidt, 03/03/2008
- [Commons-research] Presentation format, Giorgos Cheliotis, 03/03/2008
-
Re: [Commons-research] Reviews,
Giorgos Cheliotis, 03/03/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.