Comments on: Open-process academic publishing

By: Open Access Publishing in Philosophy | thinkingshop.com - The idea space

Open Access Publishing in Philosophy | thinkingshop.com - The idea space — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:58:05 +0000

[...] in their research in myriad ways. For a detailed argument in this direction see the following Hackthestate blog entry. It seems odd that philosophy, usually a pioneer in new ideas, is staunchly reluctant to consider [...]

By: WordPress as Academic Journal Software? | darkmatter Journal

WordPress as Academic Journal Software? | darkmatter Journal — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:22:19 +0000

[...] to developing alternative peer review processes. And here I’m inspired by the intervention of Toni Prug – Open-process academic publishing for interrogating the conservative, closed nature of academic peer review, and thinking through [...]

By: WordPress as Academic Journal Software? « anti-babel – sanjay sharma

WordPress as Academic Journal Software? « anti-babel – sanjay sharma — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:12:04 +0000

By: OA journals discussion « Hyper tiling

OA journals discussion « Hyper tiling — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:11:14 +0000

[...] http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2008/06/open-resource-p.html http://hackthestate.org/2009/07/27/open-process-academic-publishing/ [...]

By: Daniel Mietchen

Daniel Mietchen — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:18:01 +0000

This is just to let you know that I am writing up a blog post on a related topic, in a collaborative way that may be of interest to you.

By: NuVatsia › Open-process journals

NuVatsia › Open-process journals — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:52:07 +0000

[...] interesting proposal for academic journals, going beyond the Open Access paradigm: The suggestion is not to open the processes in random [...]

By: toniprug

toniprug — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:07:06 +0000

strange, your last set of comments was caught by the spam filter. i just approved it. had no time to look in depth at your comments, will do it in few days time. i’m in the middle of finishing off a 14000 words text which i couldn’t write on the blog – it’s too complex, politically provocative, and it took me months to get my head around it. i read piles of books and journal papers in the process of wrestling with the ideas from the text. It’s an example, at least for me personally, that i can do everything on the blog in the open. but i would love to go through an entirely open peer reviewing process once i submit it to the journal for which it is written – which won’t be the case, that option is available. Still, i’ll ask and argue for it.

By: Daniel Mietchen

Daniel Mietchen — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:41:41 +0000

My next set of comments did not go through here, so I posted it on my blog. Still not finished the whole thing yet, so more comments to come.

By: Daniel Mietchen

Daniel Mietchen — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:32:26 +0000

Some further comments: Content -Good framing of the discussion, though at places lacking in references-On "discussions in comments", see here and here.-If you do not comment in detail on the "different discursive universe", you might as well shorten or delete that phrase.-Open-process publishing and reviewing advantages, (1) --A good reference on the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics model is here.-Open-process publishing and reviewing advantages, (3) --Plagiarism detection already works quite well now, some tools are listed here. -Open-process publishing and reviewing advantages, (4) --On speeding up the publication process, see here (my comment). -Open-process publishing and reviewing advantages, (5) --The readership and even reputation of open-process publishers may increase, but "journals" in the sense we know them may well cease to exist (in fact, already now there is but one journal — the scientific literature), since the open-process handling of submissions will naturally focus on the article level (as long as these exist) and later perhaps on individual submissions to the global knowledge system, and be this a single wiki edit (e.g. via tools like WikiTrust). On incremental publishing, see here and here and here. -Internal benefits for journals, general --given my reservations on the last point, it may be worth considering to exchange the term "journal" for something else in this section (I used "public research environment"), which will obviously affect other aspects of the phrasing -Internal benefits for journals, (1)--on the feedback loop between productivity and recognition, see here. -Internal benefits for journals, (4) --Karma system in use at Slashdot may be relevant for this section, see here.-Modular process: stages and states--These stages fit well with text-based disciplines, but there may be more components (overview here) Typos and phrasing -production work . Still,-John Wilibanks -what i think ought to done-publish and perish devaluing model. Model-argument even more focused that those in an average 8000 paper are-on whose work the organization relies on -in-dept texts(yes, I would like to subscribe)-or at to have

By: Daniel Mietchen

Daniel Mietchen — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:24:32 +0000

Ben, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics is the oldest of a whole series of journals published by the European Geosciences Union that use this two-stage public peer review system (for an example discussion, see here) and have inspired other journals to follow, e.g. Economics. Technically, there is no problem in extending this 2-stage model to the n-stage model used in version control systems, as the Linux Kernel method implies.