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: "philipp schmidt" <phi.schmidt AT gmail.com>
  • To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Reviews
  • Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:58:57 +0200

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Giorgos Cheliotis <giorgos AT smu.edu.sg> wrote:
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 am looking forward to meeting you to confirm this ;-)
 

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.

I think this is a good solution - let's finish the CFP based on this and get it out.

Best, P
  


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
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


_______________________________________________
Commons-research mailing list
Commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research




--
Philipp Schmidt
University of the Western Cape, South Africa
United Nations University MERIT
E: phi.schmidt AT gmail.com


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page