Thank you Ken for your detailed and clear argumentation and suggestions, I
appreciate.
Regards,
U.
3 Ara 2017 Paz, saat 12:52 tarihinde Ken Friedman <
[log in to unmask]> şunu yazdı:
> Dear Umut,
>
> Thanks for your suggestion. While it seems reasonable at first glance,
> there are serious challenges to overcome in implementing such a model. One
> set of challenges involves editing. The other set involves reviewing.
>
> It is hard to imagine distributing editorial work amongst authors. There
> are two reasons for this. First, editorial work requires experience and
> expertise. It takes many years to develop the background knowledge and
> skills required of an editor. This is a specific set of skills. It is
> distinct from the skills required for research. The second reason is
> continuity and smooth management of workflow. Editing a journal is a
> continuous day-by-day process. The editorial team works together to ensure
> smooth work flow, and the work flow of a journal may involve several
> hundred manuscripts in different stages of development. Editing and
> managing a serious journal involves several people working on a nearly
> daily basis to handle the editorial process. It would be difficult to
> distribute this process across a network of occasional volunteers drawn
> from the author base. While costs are an issue, editing and editorial
> management is a matter of quality.
>
> On the reviewing side, drawing on authors who volunteer to review also
> raises quality problems. A good journal usually has a large pool of
> reviewers — in addition to calling on expert editors and advisors for some
> reviews, we have over four hundred ad hoc reviewers. A strong journal needs
> many reviewers because writing serious value-added reviews for different
> kinds of articles requires different kinds of reviewers. Subject field,
> discipline expertise, professional experience, and methodological expertise
> all play a role in the kind of review that one can deliver. Reviewers
> advise editors — this is far more than a matter of accepting or rejecting
> an article, and it often involves helping and advising authors.
>
> In some cases, editors choose reviewers for additional reasons. For
> example, we are now reviewing a potentially brilliant but highly
> speculative article that is quite promising, yet poorly developed. The
> article proposes a design solution to a serious contemporary problem. Even
> before sending the article out for formal review, we asked one reviewer to
> give her opinion on the background science and the likely possibility of
> the proposed solutions. She reported back that the background science is
> solid, while the proposed solutions are speculative but worth considering.
> Then we asked her whether she felt that she could help the author develop
> the article so that it reaches publishing standard. She agreed to do so,
> knowing that this review involves much more work than the average review.
>
> In another case, we had a serious article involve a highly advanced
> research method in a field where we lack reviewers. We reached out to a
> specialist who read the article, even though we knew that he is too busy to
> review it. He was kind enough to offer informal advice, and then to help us
> find two well qualified reviewers.
>
> Reviewing involve dozens of issues that involve both the expertise of the
> reviewers, and the expertise of editors in choosing reviewers and managing
> the review process.
>
> The system you suggest cannot address these at an adequate level for a
> serious journal.
>
> Two excellent books cover these aspects of editorial work.
>
> Opening the Black Box of Editorship examines what it is that editors do,
> the issues that attend different kinds of editorial responsibilities, the
> issues involved in editing different kinds of journals, and the ways to
> address many of these challenges and problems.
>
> Baruch, Yehuda, Alison M. Konrad, Herman Aguinis, and William H. Starbuck.
> 2008. Opening the Black Box of Editorship. Houndmills, Basingstoke,
> Hampshire, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
>
> The “look inside” feature of Amazon allows you to get an overview of these
> issues and to sample some of the content:
>
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Opening-Black-Editorship-Yehuda-Baruch/dp/0230013600
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Opening-Black-Box-Editorship-Baruch/dp/0230013600
>
> Irene Hames’s book Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific
> Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice describes the nuts and bolts of
> taking a manuscript through peer review, and discusses the requirements of
> a solid peer review process.
>
> Hames, Irene. 2007. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific
> Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Oxford, and Malden Massachusetts:
> Blackwell Publishing in association with the Association of Learned and
> Professional Society Publishers ( https://www.alpsp.org ).
>
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Review-Manuscript-Management-Scientific-Journals/dp/1405131594
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Review-Manuscript-Management-Scientific-Journals/dp/1405131594
>
> While I understand the apparent benefits of the kind of service model you
> propose, the practical details become a problem. Some services require
> expertise — I can make many of the minor adjustments that a MacBook
> computer user generally knows how to do, but I must call Apple Support
> several times a year to solve problems that are beyond me. I would not
> trust medical care or dental care to a volunteer service network.
>
> Editorial work and peer review work involve a great deal more than reading
> manuscripts and offering opinions. The goal of scientific and learned
> journals is to publish expert information at a high level of quality. Even
> with all the skill and expertise that editors and reviewers can muster,
> using care and due diligence, journals still publish mistaken material. The
> virtue of the processes that most journals use is that we slowly catch our
> own mistakes, correct them, and in this way create progress in the
> knowledge of the fields that we represent.
>
> To some degree, this is based on a great deal of volunteer service by
> editorial board members and reviewers. What makes it work is that a core
> editorial and publishing staff coordinates and manages the process.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design,
> Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation
> with Elsevier | URL:
> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Email
> [log in to unmask] | Academia
> http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
>
> —
>
> Umut Burcu Yurtsever wrote:
>
> —snip—
>
> Thank you all for the valuable discussions (that regretfully I have not
> been contributing to) so far.
>
> In a recent conference experience (Asian Conference on Arts and Humanities)
> I came across with a system where authors review each other. It might sound
> obsolete in a conference system where attendance fees can easily compensate
> editorial work. Is is also naive to suggest such a co-operative system for
> journalism?
>
> I agree that service to the community should be taken as part of the
> university work. Provided this, an open access journalism, where the
> accepted authors contribute to the reviewing and other editorial works,
> sounds very “right” for me. Rather than paying for publishing or accessing
> the papers, as in a business model, but working for each other and
> transforming the whole structure into a “service” model other than
> “business”, how does that “dream” sound to you?
>
> —snip—
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|