Hi,

I am a bit late with my proposal on how to deal with research quality
ensurance. I think it would fit most the idea of an open research
society that:

(1) there is such a quality ensurance process,

(2) quality ensurance is based on peer-reviews,

(3) paper rerviews are publicly available and not anonymized,

(4) paper reviews are subject to approval by the community.

I believe that the current system of anonymous reviews does not
contribute to quality ensureance. Rather it prmotes the creation of
schooles and individual power.

I agree in the potential critique of my proposal that it takes time to
organize for peer reviews and their approval. I concede that my
proposal is not fully worked out in so far as no procedure for
community approval of paper reviews is proposed. That could be fixed
if we would agree on the basic idea. However, I think my proposal
results in quality and objectivity.

Best regards, Roland Kaschek.




--- In open-research-society@yahoogroups.com, "K. Kotis" <kkot@a...>

wrote:
> Dear fellows,
> 
> indeed, an alternative Journal would be the one that offers such
services
> that will certainly encourage new researchers to try out for their
skills
> for their first time! However, I believe that also experienced
researchers
> will be tempted to submit breakthrough ideas, ...ideas that
elsewhere (in
> traditional Journals and their reviewers) would have been almost
certainly
> rejected.
> 
> In my opinion, the open research initiative should not only consider
> Journals as a medium of realizing this great idea. An alternative medium
> could be an Open Conference, a conference for Open people with Open
ideas.
> In such a way, the open research society will have its own space and
time to
> exchange research and socialize in a completely different way than the
> traditional conferences. Just imagine an annual international conference
> (could be "virtual"?) where research papers will not be left out
because of
> the conference schedule (or limit of pages)!!!! Or even more
differently,
> think of a conference session where the "best rejected" papers will
have the
> chance to become accepted, not by a board of reviewers, but by the
highly
> qualified audience...!
> 
> I hope these ideas to be further elaborated and become the new
roadmap of
> research for the common interest.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Konstantinos
>
>   _____ 
>
> From: open-research-society@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:open-research-society@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter
> Bloodsworth
> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:00 PM
> To: open-research-society@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [open-research-society] Re: Alternatives to standard peer
review
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I think the problem we have here is a trade-off between rigorous
> academic review and the length of time that is necessary to complete
> the process. It is vital that the Journal meets the highest standards
> of rigor - otherwise the impact of it will be seriously undermined. I
> agree with Miguel, that having a large group of editorial board
> members is key because then each will have fewer reviews to complete,
> which should lead to a higher quality of review.
>
> It appears that the idea of having "developmental" informal reviews
> could act as a feeder process into the main Journal. This would be of
> great use to those just starting out in academia as it would provide
> feedback without the fear factor. It may also allow new ideas room to
> breath. I is often the case that exciting concepts are rejected simply
> because the researcher is inexperienced at putting the ideas across.
> The current standard review process makes this even more difficult as
> you only find out that you have described something when you get
> rejected. Often feedback is rather poor and you can be left with the
> feeling that if only you could talk to the reviewer the outcome would
> be very different.
>
> Is it possible that this feeder process could be accomplished using a
> forum not dissimilar to Yahoo-Groups? Much of the work done by the
> open-source community uses forums to discuss ideas, problems and
> future work. Those with greater experience in the group guide others
> with less. Could we adopt this process with perhaps an expression of
> interest and an initial rough draft of a paper being posted on the
> forum for others (the many) to comment on. I am sure that this would
> encourage collaboration and result in a higher quality of publication.
> It would also allow the community as a whole to guide future
> generations of researchers.
>  
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Peter 
>
>
> --- In open-research-society@yahoogroups.com, "masicilia"
> <msicilia@u...> wrote:
> > Dear Christian and dear all,
> >
> > I agree with you Christian in that something different to standard
peer
> > review should be done in a open research society. However, I think
that
> > the following points are important:
> >
> > 1) Peer review is old as modern techno-science, and possibly we could
> > not get the journals indexed if we do not adhere to "some form" of
peer
> > review. Removal of peer-review would make the journal be rejected in
> > some countries, e.g. in Spain. :-(
> >
> > 2) The view that many review the many is attracting, but what
would be
> > the concrete review process (the concrete steps and time frame)? The
> > wikipedia is a good model (even though the information put there, at
> > least in the spanish site for politics, is clearly biased) but for
long-
> > running reviews, not for publications that are supposed to be fixed
> > after acceptance and require fast review for the attribution of
> > priority in research results. So I think the model is not directly
> > useful as is, but that it must be "tailored".
> >
> > I have some ideas about alternatives to standard process that are
"more
> > or less" compatible with the traditional view (so that the best of
both
> > worlds could be mantained):
> >
> > 1) Rotating and large editorial boards. Rotation can be
established as
> > a principle from the beginning, so that it becomes a standard of the
> > journal, and it gives chances for more people to collaborate.
> >
> > 2) The peer-review process could be done in two fashions:
> > - "Normal" peer review, but with fast, "guaranteed" turnaround.
> > - "Developmental" review, in which the author submits a *draft*
and it
> > is reviewed informally by many. Then, from the informal review, it is
> > decided o go on to submit a full-prepared manuscript. This is
specially
> > useful for "special issues" and also as a way for new ideas.
> >
> > 3) The time to review will be fixed for reviewers, and failure to
meet
> > the deadlines will eventually result in exclusion. That is, review
> > requires a strong commitmment, and I feel that this is closer to open
> > source, in which leaders are usually hard workers.
> >
> > I believe that the shift should be that of giving guarantees to
authors
> > that their submissions will be properly reviewed in a fixed, short
> > time, which gives them the opportunity to sumbit quickly to other
> > journal is the result is negative. I have many times suffered
> > supposedly "fast" processes that end in waiting a year to obtain very
> > weak reviews. This of course must be avoided by all means.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Miguel Angel.
> >
> > --- In open-research-society@yahoogroups.com, "Christian Wagner"
> > <christian@w...> wrote:
> > > I have read with interest the various arguments on the editorial /
> > > journal system and process.
> > >
> > > My argument, to reiterate, is to brake away from traditional
views of
> > > editorial boards and such. 
> > >
> > > An open research society should, in my opinion, adopt more the
> > > principles of opensource, including a peer review process where the
> > > many review the many.
> > >
> > > Some of you may know the wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org), an online
> > > encyclopedia which is entirely peer reviewed and revised, without an
> > > editorial review board as an intermediary that slows down the
> > > publication process.  This model, and the model of slashdot.org or
> > > kuro5hin.org (as mentioned earlier) would seem more appropriate
to me,
> > > to produce a paradigm shift.
>
>
>
>
>

> SPONSORED LINKS
> Computer
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Computer+internet&w1=Computer+internet&
>
w2=Computer+security&w3=Computer+training&w4=Promote&c=4&s=82&.sig=fU-TYZo-z
> 2eZlC3Q_PWFeQ> internet       Computer
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Computer+security&w1=Computer+internet&
>
w2=Computer+security&w3=Computer+training&w4=Promote&c=4&s=82&.sig=5Eufrxd6h
> bic4bWRXysoRQ> security       Computer
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Computer+training&w1=Computer+internet&
>
w2=Computer+security&w3=Computer+training&w4=Promote&c=4&s=82&.sig=pd4n6UsIF
> 2U_8FU5vdIGJw> training      
> Promote
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Promote&w1=Computer+internet&w2=Compute
>
r+security&w3=Computer+training&w4=Promote&c=4&s=82&.sig=W72z5Ar_OZWijm4VAmT
> cAA>       
>
>   _____ 
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>      
> *      Visit your group "open-research-society
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/open-research-society> " on the web.
>  
>
> *      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  open-research-society-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
<mailto:open-research-society-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscrib
> e>
>  
>
> *      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>   _____

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "open-research-society" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    open-research-society-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---