Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

commons-research - Re: [Commons-research] Reviews

commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Commons-research mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • 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



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page