Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

commons-research - Re: [Commons-research] open review model for upcoming workshop

commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Commons-research mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Giorgos Cheliotis <gcheliotis.lists AT gmail.com>
  • To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Commons-research] open review model for upcoming workshop
  • Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:18:13 +0800

I've been following the comments on the review process with interest... I will look at this again once the venue, date, format and size of this year's event is confirmed; there's been a few delays with that and in the end we'll have to settle for an approach that will fit other constraints, including time constraints. In general I'm keen to look at ways of adding some experimentation to the review process, as long as it does not compromise the quality of the reviews or the interests of authors or reviewers.


On Feb 19, 2009, at 9:09 PM, Kim Tucker wrote:

Hi all,

Would it make sense to conduct a peer production process for the
papers with on-going "review"/constructive criticism (e.g. on the
'discussion' pages of a wiki)? Comments and discussion may be signed
or anonymous.

Selection of the papers to be presented may be a function of the
degree of value-add during this peer production process which would
inform participants' ratings/votes indicating the quality of the paper
(on "voting day").

The on-going peer review/production would be open and optionally
anonymous/eponymous.
The rating/voting would be open (to reviewers and prospective
participants) and anonymous.

Kim

------------------
2009/2/19 Alek Tarkowski <alek AT creativecommons.pl>:
Dear all,

Giorgos Cheliotis wrote:
My gripe still is that in none of the arguments you or Horrobin
presented did I find actual support for the hypothesis that an open
and eponymous review process will generally produce better results
than an anonymous peer review process.

Well, then we have, I feel a good opportunity for "research in action".
This makes me think of a statement from James Boyle that I like a lot,
about how we are overly cautious, or even affraid of openness, mianly
out of routine - we are much more used to closed processes.

If I may add to this discussion from a practical point of view (which
might seem too "vulgar", I'm affraid, compared to arguments based on
principles - and in a way rightly so). The peer review processes I have
participated in have always been messy affairs. The anonymity is never
perfect, as you just recognize some people by their work. Many other
factors can be flawed - like the fact that some reviewers just don't
spend enough time and energy; that there is no system for normalizing
review scales and double or triple reviews are only a partial solution,
etc.

So knowing that the peer review process is not perfect in general, and
that opening it, while not clearly beneficial, should not be destructive
either - I think we should be brave and go ahead with an open model.

Cheers,

Alek

--
dr Alek Tarkowski
koordynator / public lead
Creative Commons Polska / Poland
http://creativecommons.pl

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

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




  • Re: [Commons-research] open review model for upcoming workshop, Giorgos Cheliotis, 03/06/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page