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 22:27:09 +0800


Philipp,

did you contact anyone with respect to chairing the workshop? If it seems
like a great responsibility and people are afraid of committing beyond their
available bandwidth, you could also mention the possibility of being a member
of the program committee.

Giorgos

________________________________

From: commons-research-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of philipp schmidt
Sent: Mon 3/3/2008 9:58 PM
To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Reviews


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

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



_______________________________________________
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

<<winmail.dat>>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page