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: "Giorgos Cheliotis" <giorgos AT smu.edu.sg>
  • To: <commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Reviews
  • Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:29:12 +0800

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 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.

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

<<winmail.dat>>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page