Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

commons-research - Re: [Commons-research] isummit proposals coming in via pentabarf

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] isummit proposals coming in via pentabarf
  • Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:09:14 +0800

Alek, your points are well taken. I have answered some of those in earlier
discussions on the list. Some are admittedly not that easy to answer and as
you said yourself experimenting with open forms of reviewing is a long-term
project. But I will reiterate through some of the points:

You are actually on the list of the program committee which includes
academics and researchers who meet some minimal criteria to be considered
"peers" in the academic sense. It is them who will be in charge of reviewing
submissions. These reviews will indeed be more "relaxed" as you stated,
because (a) this is a workshop aimed at showing early results, (b) we only
ask for extended abstracts and not full papers, and (c) it is
multidisciplinary and different communities have different norms with respect
to what they consider "good research".

Now in addition to the peer-reviewed part of the workshop, and to accommodate
for more types of submissions, we are including a demo/speed-geeking session
for work that may be innovative, interesting, but not so "academic" in
nature. It is up to the people in the speed-geeking committee to organize
that as they see fit.

Finally, we have agreed to have an open discussion session on exactly these
topics during the workshop, i.e. open vs. closed review, open access, etc.

In this manner we try to make space for both the "traditional" model of
academic peer review and alternative approaches, plus encourage discussion on
the pros and cons of each approach. I think that in this way we strike a
reasonable balance. It is the first time we are attempting this, so the whole
thing is an experiment of sorts. The whole thing started anyhow by some
academics saying why not have a research workshop during the summit, and then
it grew into a research track, so we try to accommodate for different
viewpoints, while not doing away completely with academic tradition.

By the way, the peer review as it stands now will be open in the sense that
the results will be published online, but will be closed in the sense that
only program committee members can vote. the latter is again in line with
respecting the norms of academic peer review.

I am not sure I have answered everything, but I hope you will find that the
above is a reasonable compromise. Also, I think that the open way in which we
organize and plan the workshop through this mailing list is already a big
departure from the way in which most academic conferences are planned.

Giorgos

________________________________

From: commons-research-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Alek Tarkowski
Sent: Thu 3/20/2008 10:11 PM
To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [Commons-research] isummit proposals coming in via pentabarf



Dear all,

I'd like to comment on the earlier discussion about the review process.
I know I'm late, but I've been away and only now managed to read earlier
messages.

I do not really understand why the research track needs a special review
process. Just because it's something academics do? Can't we just use the
standard process that will be used for the summit (whatever it is) - if
it's good for the summit at large, why isn't it good for the academia? I
assume that all summit contributions are expected to have a similar,
high standard.

Similarly, I think that the arguments for a closed peer review process
should be discussed: for example, Giorgos, you mention the possibility
of humiliation. But in an open review process a) you wouldn't submit
something you feel could be humiliating, right? and b) as a reviewer,
you would not write a humiliating review, if people were to see that it
was unjust or unpleasant.
Also, voting does not have to be immediately a popularity vote. It would
be conducted in a community of peers, and reasonable ones, at that (I
hope!).

I understand this might not be a good moment for experiments, but I
agree with Eve that this is something definitely worth discussing. In my
research institution we are starting a big project to introduce "open
science" into Poland and the opening up of the review process is for us
one priority (although this is definitely a long-term task!). At the
same time, I'm not sure there'll be enough time to have a proper
discussion on this - but a presentation on this would be great.

I would also support Eve in her criticism of taking the "academic"
adjective too seriously. I think we shouldn't accept uncritically the
basic academic format: panel with chair and presentations, followed by
discussion. This is not a formal academic conference, we are not part of
some organization or institutionalized research field - so maybe we
should rather be thinking about a workshop, with a more relaxed atmosphere.

I also have a question that I haven't seen addressed (I admit I skimmed
some parts of the previous conversation): If we go ahead with the peer
review process, who will be the reviewers?

Cheers, and sorry for poking a stick into an anthole,

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


<<winmail.dat>>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page