Send by mistake. Please ignore.

Send from a small glowing rectangle
On Jun 7, 2015 7:04 AM, "Grit Hartung" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> ... ....
> Quality of writing - acceptancerate- impact - ...
> ...
> Design Studies and International Journal of Design are among the most
> respected in our field, along with Design Issues, an ISI indexed journal
> without a formal impact factor. Even so, articles in Design Issues are
> comparably visible, widely read, and highly cited. While nearly everyone in
> the design field reads these three journals, colleagues across most fields
> read Nature.
>
> It is impact factor and not rejection rate that establishes the global
> standing and relative academic prestige of a journal.
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken Friedman
>
> Send from a small glowing rectangle
> On Jun 7, 2015 12:02 AM, "PHD-DESIGN automatic digest system" <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> There are 16 messages totaling 2567 lines in this issue.
>>
>> Topics of the day:
>>
>>   1. Pressure for publication (5)
>>   2. Respect (4)
>>   3. Fresh approach + Professional vs Research Experience (2)
>>   4. List Usability (5)
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Fri, 5 Jun 2015 20:15:19 -0400
>> From:    Filippo Salustri <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Pressure for publication
>>
>> Ken,
>> Thanks for the detailed (as usual) and quite exhaustive post.  My
>> comments,
>> such as they are, are embedded.
>>
>> On 5 June 2015 at 16:05, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Don pointed to some of the problems of the publishing system. There are
>> > better ways to make journals work, but these require editors to examine
>> > articles carefully prior to peer review. A significant number of flawed
>> > articles get through both because reviewers are over-worked and because
>> > editors send material to review that should not be sent on. If editors
>> > ensured that articles conformed to journal standards prior to review,
>> this
>> > would reduce pressure on reviewers. Editors might also pay attention to
>> > serious reviews — it has been my experience that a serious,
>> developmental
>> > review takes about six hours, and I have seen on several occasions that
>> > editors simply accept articles despite significant flaws. This is a
>> > separate problem to authors who don’t care about the issues in a review,
>> > but simply pass articles along to the next journal without improvements
>> —
>> > or modify the title and do nothing else.
>> >
>>
>> It might also help if new editors were given some mentorship in these
>> matters.  When I decided to try my hand at it, it was assumed that I
>> already knew exactly what to do.  Fortunately, my curiosity drove me to
>> check the papers I was assigned in tandem with searching for reviewers.
>> This led me to discover independently the value of editor-as-filter for
>> journals.  I don't know what other practices I might be dropping the ball
>> on.  Perhaps it's a function of the journal with which I am involved - I
>> would imagine some top shelf journals have very stringent practices about
>> accepting a new editor and their training if needed.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Part of this has to do with publication metrics. It involves the wish
>> (or
>> > need) for authors to publish something, perhaps anything, in an effort
>> to
>> > represent that they are doing research. This is quite different to the
>> > desire to make a contribution to the knowledge of the field.
>> >
>>
>> > This also involves the appetite of journals for content. Once a journal
>> > exists, it must fill pages. There is some flexibility, but there is
>> > generally a minimum page count. While I can say that I have seen some
>> silly
>> > work creep into print, I acknowledge that there are legitimate
>> differences
>> > of opinion on what is worth publishing in the way of  scholarship and
>> > research. Even so, the standards in the design field often fall below
>> the
>> > standards in other fields.
>> >
>> > This is exacerbated by accepting bad conference papers. One of the key
>> > reasons for so many bad conference papers is that conferences must often
>> > have a specific number of presenters to break even. As a result,
>> conference
>> > organisers often accept bad papers — including papers that all reviewers
>> > have stated lie outside the range of acceptable research.
>> >
>>
>> > An increasing number of conference organisers use a trick based on a
>> > supposedly rigorous point system. Reviewers are asked to assign points
>> for
>> > different criteria on a scale of 1 to 100 or some similar system. When
>> the
>> > conference plan begins, organisers state that they will only accept
>> papers
>> > above 70 of 100 points. Then, when all the reviewing is done, they
>> > calculate how the number of accepted papers will affect the budget. On
>> > several occasions, I have seen organisers drop the number of required
>> > points dramatically to reach the financial break-even point. If it takes
>> > dropping the score on accepted papers to 35 of 100 points to break even,
>> > that is the decision.
>> >
>>
>> This really brings out the systems aspects of things.  If Terry is
>> listening somewhere, I'm confident he'd agree that this is a systems
>> problem, and that the first step would be to develop an accurate (albeit
>> possibly qualitative) model of the whole academic publishing enterprise.
>> It might be that from such a model, opportunities to exert pressure at
>> "leverage points" (per Meadows) would yield improvements without causing
>> chaos.
>>
>> Additionally, I wonder if we don't have too many conferences.  I mean -
>> one
>> way to help ensure that bad conference papers don't see the light of day
>> is
>> to limit the total number of spaces.  Perhaps we need to start organizing
>> fewer, but larger conferences, such that there will be a net decrease in
>> total number of papers presented.  Having fewer conferences could help
>> standardize practices around the review process too.  Economies of scale
>> and all that.  It would be a delicate matter to find the right balance,
>> but
>> I don't think it's impossible.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > This has nothing to do with predatory publishing or fake conferences —
>> > these problems and tricks appear in journals and conferences that are,
>> for
>> > the most part, legitimate.
>> >
>> > Other issues also come into play. Journal publishing firms must build up
>> > their package of journals to make an offering in the library market. And
>> > there are still more reasons for publishing journals with sometimes
>> > troubling content. I know one journal publishing firm that added a few
>> > questionable journals to its offering simply to create a bigger package
>> of
>> > journals as part of the preparation for a corporate sale. More journals
>> > meant a higher sale price.
>> >
>> > There are ways around this. They require serious thought and occasional
>> > tough choices. The question is what we want for the field.
>> >
>> > And this involves a wide range of additional questions in a field where
>> > people do not always wish to address the kinds of question on research
>> and
>> > philosophy of science that older fields wrestled with and acted on long
>> ago.
>> >
>>
>> So... at the risk of being recursive, perhaps a series of workshops to
>> bring people together to study the problem?
>>
>>
>> > Or so I believe.
>> >
>>
>> I agree with you.
>>
>> \V/_  /fas
>>
>> *Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 01:31:25 +0100
>> From:    katie jane hill <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Respect
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On several occassions I have witnessed the bonding of young design
>> research
>> colleagues over a hearty critique of this list, usually in the bar after a
>> conference, along the lines of 'same old voices' and it not reflecting the
>> phd community i.e. people doing phds at the time.
>>
>> The list is what it is, and like other spaces in our world because of the
>> nature of the profession it can be dominated by senior male voices because
>> traditionally that's who the design researchers have been, and because we
>> haven't smashed the patriarchy yet - it's really interesting and positive
>> to see this reflected upon so openly because I haven't witnessed the same
>> self awareness, scrutiny and reflection given to the domination of
>> conference spaces, for example.
>>
>> thank you for all the thoughtful comments, it really is interesting to see
>> members of the list reflecting in this way.
>>
>> despite having occasionally joined in with the critique i do keep coming
>> back to read the list, it has it's place in my professional life and i
>> can't think how i'd change it, other than perhaps a note to self to post
>> more often. it seems sensible that the way to change the list is to
>> participate.
>>
>> katie hill
>> design researcher
>> Leeds, UK
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Filippo Salustri <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > This is my second post on this thread, so it’ll be my last.
>> Unfortunately
>> > this post will consequently be long. I mean nothing by it but to
>> express an
>> > accumulation of thoughts I’ve had about all the posts on this thread so
>> > far.  Also, I don’t want anyone to think I *intended* to focus on
>> > Cristiano’s posts; it just turned out that his were the ones that
>> compelled
>> > me the strongest to reply.  I mean no disrespect by it, nor do I seek to
>> > discourage him from posting.
>> >
>> > And to set a bit of context, here’s a brief description of me so that
>> you,
>> > gentle reader, might better understand where I’m coming from: engineer
>> by
>> > training (but don’t hold that against me), design researcher, systems
>> guy,
>> > diagram/visualization guy, sustainability guy; post-positivist humanist;
>> > meritocrat; been an academic since 1995; Canadian by birth (proud
>> > “Canuckistanian”) and upbringing; white, male, European descent, 53
>> years
>> > old. People tell me I’m long-winded.
>> >
>> > So, here we go.  If it gets too much for you, just hit the delete key; I
>> > won’t mind.
>> >
>> > Ken Friedman:
>> >
>> > I’m responding to Ken’s message first, even though it came late in the
>> > discussion, because I think the questions he asks are relevant, and the
>> > answers we provide will be very meaningful to the future of the list.
>> >
>> > 1) Is list culture harsh and discouraging?
>> > I’ve never thought so.  I’ve seen "harsh and discouraging" over the
>> years,
>> > and this ain’t it.
>> >
>> > 2) Are list debates so intimidating that they discourage people from
>> > posting on any topic? Do some people value the debates even though they
>> may
>> > not themselves wish to post?
>> > Some debates involve knowledge I lack, so sometimes I just don’t get
>> it.  I
>> > suppose this counts as a “discouragement” to post, at least on that
>> thread,
>> > but I don’t see that as a bad thing. I’ve got nothing to contribute to
>> that
>> > thread, so I don’t.  There will be other threads.  And once in a while,
>> I
>> > actually learn something new, or gain motivation to go off and learn
>> more
>> > about something.  Typical example: I didn’t know much about systems
>> till I
>> > started seeing Terry’s posts about it; now I do a lot of work in that
>> area
>> > and am quite an advocate for systems thinking.  Thank you Terry!
>> >
>> > 3) Should those who post carefully argued, carefully reference posts
>> stop?
>> > Is this killing the conversation and damaging the list?
>> > Please, no.  There’s a diversity of types of posts, and I think that’s
>> one
>> > of the attractions of this list.  There’s something here for everyone.
>> I
>> > enjoy the long and detailed essay-esque ones, especially if they’re
>> > intermingled with shorter more conversational ones.  I find the changes
>> of
>> > pace bracing and stimulating in their own right.
>> >
>> > 4) Should grumpy old (male) professors stop debating on the PhD-Design
>> > list? Is it time for older males to leave the conversation to younger
>> > folks? Apart from something friendly and wise from time to time, is it
>> time
>> > for older males to save our disagreements and debates for another forum?
>> > Not sure if I should answer this as, according to some (including my own
>> > kids), I’m certainly grumpy and old.  I readily plead guilty to being
>> male
>> > in both gender and sex; not much I can do about that.  On the other
>> hand, I
>> > don’t think of myself as old, and I try not to be grumpy. (Coffee
>> helps).
>> > So I will offer this response, to be taken with whatever amount of salt
>> the
>> > reader feels appropriate: No I don’t think the grumpy old male profs
>> should
>> > stop.  They have experiences and insights that go beyond the grumpy bits
>> > and the old bits and the male bits.  Others, including me, can learn
>> from
>> > that.
>> >
>> > Cristiano Storni:
>> >
>> > “... and even more who stay away from posting for the fear of being
>> > > 'chastise' in public…"
>> >
>> >
>> > I think it’s important that we try, whenever possible, to engage and
>> > understand where this fear comes from.  And by “we” I mean all of us,
>> but
>> > especially those of us who’ve been around here a while.  This
>> understanding
>> > serves three purposes: (a) we will better understand the dynamics of our
>> > own communities, (b) we may discover ways to mediate our own individual
>> > communications to mitigate that fear, and (c) we may be able to help
>> some
>> > people overcome their fears and become more active in the list.
>> > And I think Klaus & Stephanie may have found the thin edge of a wedge
>> (see
>> > ‘way near the end of this post) that we might use to address this a bit.
>> >
>> > "I am sorry, but I personally believe Filippo's message misses the point
>> > > here because it reaffirms (at least to me) how a handful of (male)
>> > members
>> > > sets up the standard by telling the whole community what we can say,
>> what
>> > > is natural to feel, what is rational, how we should interpret
>> messages,
>> > and
>> > > what is welcome, more or less implicitly assuming they know better."
>> >
>> >
>> > That’s interesting, because nothing could be further from what I’d
>> > intended.  What I was advocating for is that at first blush, the best
>> > approach is, per the principle of charity, to assume every utterance is
>> > valid, to then use evidence to decide whether that initial assessment
>> was
>> > reasonable, and to adjust the assessment accordingly.  This is something
>> > done by being open, attentive, and willing to consider and understand
>> what
>> > others say.  That I happen to be male is quite frankly irrelevant.  The
>> > ideas are either correct or incorrect, useful or useless, appropriate or
>> > inappropriate.  Judge the idea, not the person uttering it. And I really
>> > don’t see how what I proposed could possibly be taken as limiting
>> anyone in
>> > any way.
>> > Also, notice your choice of language: *I* missed the point, because
>> *you*
>> > are reaffirmed of something by it.  This could be taken to infer that
>> *I*
>> > erred because *you* interpreted my post in a certain way.  That’s
>> certainly
>> > a possibility.  But it’s also possible that your interpretation is
>> “wrong”
>> > insofar as it is not the actual message I was transmitting to you.  One
>> > could argue that you’ve committed precisely the kind of ‘error’ you’ve
>> > accused me of committing.
>> > But note: I am in fact NOT accusing you, Cristiano, of anything at all.
>> I’m
>> > using this as an example of how easy it is to reasonably misinterpret a
>> > statement.   Since it’s so easy, and since the interpretations emerge
>> from
>> > the interaction between agents, the responsibility to ensure fidelity of
>> > transmission lies with both transmitter and receiver.
>> > Of course, I could be wrong, and I welcome evidence to that effect, so
>> that
>> > I might learn and improve.
>> >
>> > “My feeling is that some speak as they own this list. When generosity is
>> > > invoked I wonder if writing very long messages and sharing huge
>> amount of
>> > > resources (which definitely show dedication) is not a way to actually
>> > kill
>> > > the conversation, mark the territory, and reaffirm one own
>> superiority."
>> >
>> >
>> > I don’t doubt the truth of the claim that you feel this way.  But you
>> > should recognize that your “feelings” may not accurately represent the
>> > other.  This is not something that induces “blame” or anything like
>> that.
>> > It’s a function of being human.
>> > If respect is to be truly foundational to this community, then we must
>> > include all forms of it, including the form of respect proposed by the
>> > principle of charity.  And yes, I wrote “must,” but not from a position
>> of
>> > “power” - rather it comes from a position of knowledge: if an entity is
>> to
>> > be foundational - as it seems we all agree respect should be - then to
>> be
>> > selective about *types* of respect means that respect is really a
>> > composite, rather than foundational, entity.  If it’s composite, then we
>> > would be better served to break down respect into its constituents and
>> > decide which of those constituents are actually foundational.
>> > As it happens, I do think respect is foundational; but that means I
>> *must*
>> > include all its aspects and types, which I do try to do.
>> >
>> > "Respect is the care you put in not inflicting damage upon others."
>> >
>> >
>> > Respect is also manifest in giving others the benefit of the doubt.
>> > Perhaps, inflicted damage arises from the combination of an interaction
>> > with another + one’s own experiences, which the other cannot possibly
>> > know.  In such cases, one cannot justify accusing the other of
>> intentional
>> > damage.  And I think intention is at the heart of it here.
>> >
>> > "However, don't forget that we consciously decided to put ourselves in
>> this
>> > > spot. And in this spot there is conflict, or else it would be called
>> "PhD
>> > > Comfy Chair" instead of "Research”."
>> >
>> >
>> > This is inevitable, especially in a community such as this one,
>> populated
>> > by passionate, knowledgeable people. Conflict doesn’t equate to
>> disrespect,
>> > or the assertion of power.  The “good” part of the conflict arises from
>> > clashing ideas, not clashing people.
>> >
>> > "Anyway, a bit of common sense, sense of humour, and empathy goes a long
>> > > way."
>> >
>> >
>> > On this, we absolutely agree.
>> >
>> > “I was just picking up bits and pieces from Filippo's message…."
>> >
>> >
>> > I trust you see how that might have been taken to suggest you were
>> > cherry-picking from the available statements to support your claim.  I
>> > didn’t take it that way, but I highlight this as an example of how there
>> > can be reasonable interpretations of statements that are nonetheless
>> > unintended.  I applied the principle of charity here, and looked for
>> what
>> > you might otherwise mean to have said.  Clearly, your other posts
>> reflect
>> > your thoughtfulness and interest in promoting a “healthy” community
>> here on
>> > phd-design.  It is that evidence that informs me that you really didn’t
>> > mean to imply that you were cherry-picking, and that supports my
>> > application of the principle of charity.  I suggest this is a
>> > characteristic we should all cultivate - to look past the words on the
>> > screen toward the truer intention behind them.  Evidence is the final
>> > arbiter, but in its absence we can still make a respectful effort to
>> look
>> > beyond the language.  The medium doesn’t have to be the message.
>> >
>> > “...imperative/indicative claims read patronising if not even arrogant…"
>> >
>> >
>> > Or perhaps they are simply statements of fact.  Because one does not
>> know
>> > what there other knows when one engages the other in a conversation, it
>> is
>> > not possible (or at least tractable) to first set an exhaustive
>> vocabulary
>> > of agreed upon terms and concepts.  Again, it is beneficial to step
>> back,
>> > to examine the interaction (not just the sender or receiver, but the
>> system
>> > that results from the interaction and the context in which it occurs),
>> and
>> > consider whether one’s initial interpretation is really the best
>> > representation of reality and whether we should really have as much
>> > confidence as we so often do in that initial interpretation.
>> >
>> > "Back to my mention of standard, factual claims assume there is a better
>> > > way of thinking, a better set of values, better procedures,
>> indisputable
>> > > truths, and so on (all typical characters of modernist western
>> > scientism)."
>> >
>> >
>> > But there *are* better ways of thinking, some values *are* better than
>> > others, and so on.  If there weren’t, there would be no need for
>> education
>> > at all.
>> > Also, just for the record, some people use the word “scientism” in a…
>> > derogatory way.  I sincerely hope you meant it otherwise, and I will
>> assume
>> > you did unless I gain evidence to the contrary.  Also just for the
>> record,
>> > I subscribe to scientism insofar as it claims that the methods of
>> science
>> > can be beneficial in understanding the world generally (i.e., not just
>> > within the typical domains of science).  I do not believe that
>> scientism is
>> > “...is a way to silence and kill differences…” and in support of this
>> > claim, I draw one’s attention to how vigourous scientific argumentation
>> is
>> > in fact.  But perhaps this is best left to a separate thread or off-line
>> > discussion.
>> >
>> > Susan Hagan:
>> >
>> > "And I have to admit, at first I thought “what have a gotten myself
>> into.”
>> > > I also thought, “yuck, I am completely capable of shallow reading and
>> > > categorization errors.” So that push back gave me the opportunity to
>> test
>> > > out if I had or had not been guilty in that case. More importantly,
>> the
>> > > pushback led to some interesting related ideas that would never have
>> come
>> > > up otherwise (at least interesting to me). I hope that the seeds of
>> the
>> > > interaction also moved the discussion to a deeper look at rhetoric as
>> a
>> > > tool that might be helpful to design."
>> >
>> >
>> > This captures the benefit of these discussions, even if one find one’s
>> > position countered vigorously.  Again, it’s not the medium, it’s the
>> > message.  That may not be the case in other settings, but I sincerely
>> > believe it should be a value within this community.
>> >
>> > Teena Clerke:
>> >
>> > Thanks for the link to the work of Janice Moulton. I’ve added it to my
>> > reading list.  I have often wondered about the adversarial nature of so
>> > many interactions (including court proceedings and labour relations) but
>> > I’ve never known where to start learning more.
>> >
>> > “...a vast majority of people who will not post because of the
>> relations of
>> > > power that constrain…."
>> >
>> >
>> > This power relation thing is something I’ve never understood, and I
>> accept
>> > full and sole responsibility for that lack of understanding.  Perhaps
>> it is
>> > my character, perhaps it is my upbringing (academic and otherwise), but
>> > I’ve never understood the notion of power relations, especially in
>> > academia.  It would be great (and I’m aware of my selfish motivation
>> here)
>> > to start a separate thread on that.
>> >
>> > "Not all on the list have a PhD and not all with PhDs go through a viva.
>> > > And the viva is a great example of the adversary method of which
>> Mouton
>> > > critiques as a gendered practice (see my previous post). As a
>> practice,
>> > it
>> > > needs to be continually reproduced, which also means it is capable of
>> > being
>> > > disrupted. Mindfulness may be helpful here."
>> >
>> >
>> > There’s a colleague of mine, with whom I’ve been honoured to work on
>> > several projects. We have sat on many graduate level final thesis
>> defences
>> > / vivas (vivae?).  The care, respect, and attention that he gives these
>> > events boggles my mind. I've seen him get frustrated on occasion, but he
>> > never, ever lets it "out."  He always gives students all the time they
>> need
>> > to understand and respond to questions, within reason; and when reason
>> is
>> > exceeded, he finds gentle yet accurate ways to express the need for the
>> > candidate to refine their thinking.  He struggles mightily to offer
>> > examples of how one aspect or another of the work being examined can be
>> > interpreted and makes sure the candidate understands them before asking
>> the
>> > candidate to express an opinion.
>> > And he is a “he."
>> > I offer this as a data point supporting the notion that there are very
>> > valid alternatives to the adversarial approach, that those approaches
>> can
>> > be robust and functional, and that they can be successfully used by
>> anyone,
>> > regardless of gender/sex/etc.  I don't know if he would call what he
>> does
>> > "mindfulness."  When I am able to reach his level of nirvana-like
>> > attunement, I think of it as arising from my adoption of scientism
>> > (*cough*) as a guidepost to my behaviour in these situations.  Whatever
>> > these methods are, I’m in full agreement with you on this point.
>> >
>> > Klaus Krippendorff:
>> >
>> > " i think impoliteness and insults are easier to make if one is only
>> known
>> > > by first name and an email address."
>> >
>> >
>> > I agree, and this provides further motivation for people to post to the
>> > list: the more people know about you, the more the other can understand
>> > you. And that understanding can prevent many, many confrontations.
>> >
>> > Stephanie di Russo:
>> >
>> > "What has annoyed me in the past is that when i have genuinely tried to
>> > > contribute or ask a question to further my knowledge, it has been
>> > received
>> > > with an air of “how could you not know that?” I stress that it is
>> > > *impossible* and unfair to assume or expect a young phd student to
>> know
>> > as
>> > > much as those with 20+ years of experience. Sometimes this is a
>> genuine
>> > > misunderstanding, as often we don’t know a participants age and
>> > experience."
>> >
>> >
>> > This is a valid point.  In combination with Klaus comment (above), it
>> may
>> > represent a “leverage point” where we can take concrete action.
>> > Is there some reasonable mechanism by which we can, perhaps annually,
>> have
>> > a period of time during which new members and lurkers are encouraged to
>> > provide brief introductions of themselves, and from which others may, as
>> > the opportunity permits, follow up with questions germane to expanding
>> on
>> > their areas of expertise, professional experience, etc?
>> > Or perhaps we should identify a day of the week - say, "Social Sunday" -
>> > where the goal is to have one or two people make short posts generally
>> > about themselves....
>> >
>> > "What i do expect to see in return is a little more compassion that if
>> > > something is said that seems obvious, new students will not be
>> patronised
>> > > for it."
>> >
>> >
>> > This too is a good point.  I think we’ve all been there at some point in
>> > our careers; I know I have.  This is largely a function of the dynamics
>> of
>> > the interactions on the list.  From a systems perspective, it is to be
>> > expected that agents not-completely-overlapping internal bodies of
>> > knowledge will come into conflict.  It's inevitable.  I think that it
>> would
>> > help here too if we knew a little more about each other, but somehow
>> that
>> > doesn’t feel sufficient.  I’m not seeing other possibilities, so this
>> one
>> > is an open issue.  How can we address this one?
>> >
>> > Finally, to those of you who made it all the way down here to the end,
>> > thank you for having the patience to have read it all.
>> > FYI, this post took me about 4 hours to write.
>> > I shall now take a nap.
>> >
>> > \V/_  /fas
>> >
>> > *Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
>> > Email: [log in to unmask]
>> > http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>> >
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Fri, 5 Jun 2015 20:37:29 -0400
>> From:    Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Respect
>>
>> > On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:31 PM, katie jane hill <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > it seems sensible that the way to change the list is to participate.
>>
>>
>> !
>>
>>
>> Gunnar
>>
>> Gunnar Swanson
>> East Carolina University
>> graphic design program
>>
>> http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Gunnar Swanson Design Office
>> 1901 East 6th Street
>> Greenville NC 27858
>> USA
>>
>> http://www.gunnarswanson.com
>> [log in to unmask]
>> +1 252 258-7006
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 02:26:40 +0000
>> From:    Jed Looker <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Respect
>>
>> > it seems sensible that the way to change the list is to
>> > participate.
>>
>> Mic drop.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 10:45:28 +0200
>> From:    Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Pressure for publication
>>
>> Dear Mr. Bishop,
>>
>> Thank you for your reply. In my view, you seem to have misinterpreted
>> what I  wrote. I did not state that editors should decide on the merits of
>> the paper prior to review. I wrote that journal editors must “ensure that
>> articles conformed to journal standards prior to review.”
>>
>> This means that articles must conform to the journal style guide, meet
>> basic standards for relevance, fit, language, and possibility of
>> publication.
>>
>> Reviewers in a serious research journal do far more than “quality
>> control.” Reviewers play a significant role in developing an article for
>> publication. Reviewing requires a serious commitment of time. Reviewer time
>> is one of the most important resources of any journal. Journal editors
>> should respect and conserve this resource. This is why editors must ensure
>> that articles are *ready* for review. Editors must not substitute their own
>> judgement for that of the reviewers.
>>
>> Two books offer a rich overview of the review process: Baruch, Sullivan,
>> and Schepmyer (2006) Winning Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly
>> Writing, and Cummings and Frost (1995) Publishing in the Organisation
>> Sciences.
>>
>> I must gently disagree with two comments.
>>
>> First, editors do not send bad articles to review to inflate the
>> rejection rate. The journal rejection rate applies to all rejected
>> articles, before review of after. If an editor rejects an article because
>> the authors do not use the journal referencing style, it appears in
>> rejection rate statistics just as if it had been rejected by reviewers for
>> the same reason.
>>
>> Second, there is no “need in academia to have high rejection rates.” If
>> an editor were fortunate enough to receive only first-rate articles from
>> elegant writers, these would not be rejected even if it took time to get
>> them all into print. Editors hope to publish important articles that will
>> be widely read and highly cited. Journals do not measure prestige based on
>> the rejection rate. They measure prestige based on impact. This is either
>> the formal impact factor of journals indexed in the ISI Web of Science, or
>> comparable factors for journals that are not indexed for formal impact
>> factor evaluation.
>>
>> Because many authors submit articles that no journal should publish, most
>> good journals have a significant rejection rate. The best known and most
>> prestigious journals have the highest rejection rate because they are the
>> target for the greatest number of authors.
>>
>> The multidisciplinary journal Nature is a good example. Nature is among
>> the most highly cited journals in the world. The journal has an impact fact
>> of 42.351. According to long-term statistics, the editors of Nature reject
>> 60% of all articles without sending them to review. 40% of all articles go
>> to peer review. The journal publishes about 7% of all submissions, for a
>> 93% rejection rate.
>>
>> By way of comparison in the design field, Design Studies has the highest
>> impact factor for a design journal at 1.304 and a five-year impact factor
>> of 1.732. Another impact factor for a design journal is the International
>> Journal of Design, with a two-year impact factor of 0.955. The acceptance
>> rate is 13% and the rejection rate is 87%. While IJD is not all that far
>> away from Nature in acceptance rate, however the impact factor is
>> significantly different. This is because many more people read and cite
>> Nature. Design Studies and International Journal of Design are among the
>> most respected in our field, along with Design Issues, an ISI indexed
>> journal without a formal impact factor. Even so, articles in Design Issues
>> are comparably visible, widely read, and highly cited. While nearly
>> everyone in the design field reads these three journals, colleagues across
>> most fields read Nature.
>>
>> It is impact factor and not rejection rate that establishes the global
>> standing and relative academic prestige of a journal.
>>
>> Warm wishes,
>>
>> Ken Friedman
>>
>> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The
>> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
>> Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>>
>> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
>> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
>> Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
>> University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>>
>> --
>>
>> References
>>
>> Baruch, Yehudi, Sherry E. Sullivan, and Hazlon N. Schepmyer. 2006.
>> Winning Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly Writing. London:
>> Palsgrave Macmillan.
>>
>> Cummings, L. L. and Peter J. Frost. 1995. Publishing in the Organisation
>> Sciences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 10:05:46 +0100
>> From:    Jonathan Bishop <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Pressure for publication
>>
>> Dear Ken,
>>
>> Firstly, please do not call me Mr. Bishop. If you wish to use
>> pre-nominals please address me as Mx. Bishop or Freeman Bishop, for the
>> present time. I do not agree with being gendered.
>>
>> I have had publications of mine criticised by anonymous reviewers because
>> of the publisher having a 67% acceptance rate. Equally, I have been
>> a member of organisations who in relation to their publications have asked
>> what they can do to get their acceptance rate down. So even if you are not
>> aware of it as a metric, others in academia still use it.
>>
>> You misinterpret my definition of "quality control." I have been a
>> journalist in various forms since 1999. For me whether something is
>> published should be on the basis of whether it will be interesting to
>> readers. All the other issues around rigour, including those you mention,
>> can be resolved by the use of reviewers and advising authors directly.
>>
>> I see myself as an editor in the journalist sense, as someone who works
>> with authors to improve their papers, and not a glorified review handler
>> as
>> many others seem to be.
>>
>> Jonathan Bishop
>> BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM
>> FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FCLIP, FBCS CITP
>>
>> Author of over 75 research publications.
>> Editor of Examining the Concepts, Issues and Implications of Internet
>> Trolling, Transforming Politics and Policy in the Digital Age, and
>> Gamification for Human Factors Integration: Social, Educational and
>> Psychological Issues
>>
>> Envoyé par mon ordinateur
>>
>> On Saturday, 6 June 2015, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Mr. Bishop,
>> >
>> > Thank you for your reply. In my view, you seem to have misinterpreted
>> what
>> > I  wrote. I did not state that editors should decide on the merits of
>> the
>> > paper prior to review. I wrote that journal editors must “ensure that
>> > articles conformed to journal standards prior to review.”
>> >
>> > This means that articles must conform to the journal style guide, meet
>> > basic standards for relevance, fit, language, and possibility of
>> > publication.
>> >
>> > Reviewers in a serious research journal do far more than “quality
>> > control.” Reviewers play a significant role in developing an article for
>> > publication. Reviewing requires a serious commitment of time. Reviewer
>> time
>> > is one of the most important resources of any journal. Journal editors
>> > should respect and conserve this resource. This is why editors must
>> ensure
>> > that articles are *ready* for review. Editors must not substitute their
>> own
>> > judgement for that of the reviewers.
>> >
>> > Two books offer a rich overview of the review process: Baruch, Sullivan,
>> > and Schepmyer (2006) Winning Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly
>> > Writing, and Cummings and Frost (1995) Publishing in the Organisation
>> > Sciences.
>> >
>> > I must gently disagree with two comments.
>> >
>> > First, editors do not send bad articles to review to inflate the
>> rejection
>> > rate. The journal rejection rate applies to all rejected articles,
>> before
>> > review of after. If an editor rejects an article because the authors do
>> not
>> > use the journal referencing style, it appears in rejection rate
>> statistics
>> > just as if it had been rejected by reviewers for the same reason.
>> >
>> > Second, there is no “need in academia to have high rejection rates.” If
>> an
>> > editor were fortunate enough to receive only first-rate articles from
>> > elegant writers, these would not be rejected even if it took time to get
>> > them all into print. Editors hope to publish important articles that
>> will
>> > be widely read and highly cited. Journals do not measure prestige based
>> on
>> > the rejection rate. They measure prestige based on impact. This is
>> either
>> > the formal impact factor of journals indexed in the ISI Web of Science,
>> or
>> > comparable factors for journals that are not indexed for formal impact
>> > factor evaluation.
>> >
>> > Because many authors submit articles that no journal should publish,
>> most
>> > good journals have a significant rejection rate. The best known and most
>> > prestigious journals have the highest rejection rate because they are
>> the
>> > target for the greatest number of authors.
>> >
>> > The multidisciplinary journal Nature is a good example. Nature is among
>> > the most highly cited journals in the world. The journal has an impact
>> fact
>> > of 42.351. According to long-term statistics, the editors of Nature
>> reject
>> > 60% of all articles without sending them to review. 40% of all articles
>> go
>> > to peer review. The journal publishes about 7% of all submissions, for a
>> > 93% rejection rate.
>> >
>> > By way of comparison in the design field, Design Studies has the highest
>> > impact factor for a design journal at 1.304 and a five-year impact
>> factor
>> > of 1.732. Another impact factor for a design journal is the
>> International
>> > Journal of Design, with a two-year impact factor of 0.955. The
>> acceptance
>> > rate is 13% and the rejection rate is 87%. While IJD is not all that far
>> > away from Nature in acceptance rate, however the impact factor is
>> > significantly different. This is because many more people read and cite
>> > Nature. Design Studies and International Journal of Design are among the
>> > most respected in our field, along with Design Issues, an ISI indexed
>> > journal without a formal impact factor. Even so, articles in Design
>> Issues
>> > are comparably visible, widely read, and highly cited. While nearly
>> > everyone in the design field reads these three journals, colleagues
>> across
>> > most fields read Nature.
>> >
>> > It is impact factor and not rejection rate that establishes the global
>> > standing and relative academic prestige of a journal.
>> >
>> > Warm wishes,
>> >
>> > Ken Friedman
>> >
>> > Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The
>> > Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
>> > Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>> >
>> > Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
>> > Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
>> > Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
>> > University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > References
>> >
>> > Baruch, Yehudi, Sherry E. Sullivan, and Hazlon N. Schepmyer. 2006.
>> Winning
>> > Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly Writing. London: Palsgrave
>> > Macmillan.
>> >
>> > Cummings, L. L. and Peter J. Frost. 1995. Publishing in the Organisation
>> > Sciences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
>> >
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jonathan Bishop
>> BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM
>> FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FCLIP, FBCS CITP
>>
>> Author of over 75 research publications.
>> Editor of Examining the Concepts, Issues and Implications of Internet
>> Trolling, Transforming Politics and Policy in the Digital Age, and
>> Gamification for Human Factors Integration: Social, Educational and
>> Psychological Issues
>>
>> Envoyé par mon ordinateur
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 09:46:53 +0000
>> From:    "Salisbury, Martin" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Fresh approach + Professional vs Research Experience
>>
>> Dear Liliana,
>>
>> Thank you for raising this topic. I believe it is the single most
>> important issue facing design education today but it seems to be a taboo
>> subject. I have written about this many times so won't repeat myself here.
>> I had been hoping to hear views from other contributors to this forum.
>>
>> At the recent Research Through Design conference here in Cambridge, a
>> panel of four senior figures from design/ design education gathered to
>> respond to questions. Needless to say, this topic came up and led to lively
>> debate. Depressingly however, the panel insisted at the start of the
>> session that there should be no tweeting or recording of the discussion. It
>> would seem clear then that academic career progression is seen as
>> incompatible with open debate about this 'elephant in the room'. Professor
>> Sir Christopher Frayling offered some views in a filmed interview at the
>> conference and a few weeks later gave the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture
>> across town at Newnham College- 'The Head, the Heart and the Hand: The
>> surprising story of English design education'.
>>
>> I think I have conformed to your Rule 1) but not Rule 2)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> Professor Martin Salisbury
>> Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration
>> Director, The Centre for Children's Book Studies
>> Cambridge School of Art
>> 0845 196 2351
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> http://www.cambridgemashow.com
>>
>> http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
>> research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Liliana
>> Rodriguez & Carlos Peralta. //Diptico [
>> [log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 12:55 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Fresh approach + Professional vs Research Experience
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> In a positive spirit, and as there are so many (and sometimes
>> irreconcilable) opinions on the way this list should operate, we would like
>> to propose a form of self-moderation to foster ownership, and to create a
>> more dynamic and participative list dynamic.
>>
>> Each individual that initiates a tread, will set its rules at the
>> beginning of it.  For example, if you believe that long dense answers full
>> of quotations are useful, then you set a rule to allow that kind of posts.
>> Hopefully this will filter in and out people according to their research
>> interests and discussion styles, and everybody will be happy.
>>
>> So as to demonstrate this, here is the first post in this style to see if
>> it works:
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Title of tread:
>>
>> Professional vs Research Experience
>>
>> Tread rules:
>>
>> 1) Please avoid long posts (Up to 300 words)
>> 2) Well-argued personal opinions are welcomed (Not quoting literature on
>> the matter is perfectly ok)
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to us that there was a time (not too long ago really) in which
>> your professional experience as a designer (as well as your teaching
>> experience) was the most important factor to get a job as a design lecturer
>> (at least in the UK in product design courses). Now it seems that it is
>> your research background (for example holding a PhD) what mainly counts to
>> aspire to a lecturing position.
>>
>> If this is the case, how it will affect the working prospects of those
>> design graduates trained by researchers?
>>
>> What is the value of research experience against professional experience
>> in the context of teaching undergraduate and MA design students?
>>
>> Discuss,
>>
>> Liliana & Carlos
>>
>>
>> Liliana Rodriguez
>> Doctoral Researcher @ Loughborough University
>> www.lulugaia.wordpress.com/
>> www.lboro.academia.edu/LilianaRodriguez
>>
>> Carlos Peralta Ph.D (Cantab)
>> Senior Lecture in Design
>> College of Arts & Humanities
>> University of Brighton
>> http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/staff/carlos-peralta
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> --
>>
>> In the official 2014 government assessment of our research the following
>> 12 areas were found to have world-leading research: Allied Health
>> Professions; Architecture & Built Environment; Art & Design; Business &
>> Management Studies; Communication, Cultural & Media Studies; English
>> Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Law;
>> Music, Drama & Dance; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy.
>>
>> This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named
>> recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in
>> error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show
>> them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and
>> then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions
>> expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
>> represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University.
>> Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and
>> attachments are
>> free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing
>> practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
>> Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which
>> may not be a 100% secure communications
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 16:47:39 +0530
>> From:    M P Ranjan <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Fresh approach + Professional vs Research Experience
>>
>> Dear Martin
>>
>> Interesting to see Professor Sir Christopher Frayling's lecture title
>> which reminds me of my own lecture on Ethics in Design which I had
>> delivered at ITU Istanbul at the invitation of Professor Alpay Er in 2009.
>>
>> > The Head, the Heart and the Hand: The surprising story of English
>> design education'
>>
>>
>> I wonder if we can access this lecture anywhere. Is there a link?
>>
>> Links are provided below to my lecture and slide presentation should
>> anyone be interested.
>>
>> Hand-Head-Heart: Ethics in Design - Lecture by M P Ranjan
>>
>> Keynote lecture at ITU Istanbul in 2009 titled "Hand-Head-Heart: Ethics
>> in Design"
>>
>> Keynote : Hand-Head-Heart: Ethics in Design - Text
>>
>> https://www.academia.edu/3597867/Head-Hand-Heart_Ethics_in_Design_-_Keynote_at_Istanbul
>>
>> Hand-Head-Heart: Ethics in Design - Presentation Slides
>> https://www.academia.edu/3597864/Hand_-_Head_-_Heart_Ethics_in_Design
>>
>> With warm regards
>>
>> M P Ranjan
>> from my iPad at NID Campus
>> 6 June 2015 at 4.40 pm IST
>>
>> Prof M P Ranjan
>> Independent Academic, Ahmedabad
>> Adjunct Professor (Design) Ahmedabad University
>> Author of blog : http://www.designforindia.com
>> Archive of papers : https://ahduni.academia.edu/RanjanMP
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> > On 06-Jun-2015, at 3:16 pm, "Salisbury, Martin" <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Liliana,
>> >
>> > Thank you for raising this topic. I believe it is the single most
>> important issue facing design education today but it seems to be a taboo
>> subject. I have written about this many times so won't repeat myself here.
>> I had been hoping to hear views from other contributors to this forum.
>> >
>> > At the recent Research Through Design conference here in Cambridge, a
>> panel of four senior figures from design/ design education gathered to
>> respond to questions. Needless to say, this topic came up and led to lively
>> debate. Depressingly however, the panel insisted at the start of the
>> session that there should be no tweeting or recording of the discussion. It
>> would seem clear then that academic career progression is seen as
>> incompatible with open debate about this 'elephant in the room'. Professor
>> Sir Christopher Frayling offered some views in a filmed interview at the
>> conference and a few weeks later gave the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture
>> across town at Newnham College- 'The Head, the Heart and the Hand: The
>> surprising story of English design education'.
>> >
>> > I think I have conformed to your Rule 1) but not Rule 2)
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Martin
>> >
>> > Professor Martin Salisbury
>> > Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration
>> > Director, The Centre for Children's Book Studies
>> > Cambridge School of Art
>> > 0845 196 2351
>> > [log in to unmask]
>> >
>> > http://www.cambridgemashow.com
>> >
>> > http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
>> related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of
>> Liliana Rodriguez & Carlos Peralta. //Diptico [
>> [log in to unmask]]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 12:55 AM
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Fresh approach + Professional vs Research Experience
>> >
>> > Dear list,
>> >
>> > In a positive spirit, and as there are so many (and sometimes
>> irreconcilable) opinions on the way this list should operate, we would like
>> to propose a form of self-moderation to foster ownership, and to create a
>> more dynamic and participative list dynamic.
>> >
>> > Each individual that initiates a tread, will set its rules at the
>> beginning of it.  For example, if you believe that long dense answers full
>> of quotations are useful, then you set a rule to allow that kind of posts.
>> Hopefully this will filter in and out people according to their research
>> interests and discussion styles, and everybody will be happy.
>> >
>> > So as to demonstrate this, here is the first post in this style to see
>> if it works:
>> >
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Title of tread:
>> >
>> > Professional vs Research Experience
>> >
>> > Tread rules:
>> >
>> > 1) Please avoid long posts (Up to 300 words)
>> > 2) Well-argued personal opinions are welcomed (Not quoting literature
>> on the matter is perfectly ok)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It seems to us that there was a time (not too long ago really) in which
>> your professional experience as a designer (as well as your teaching
>> experience) was the most important factor to get a job as a design lecturer
>> (at least in the UK in product design courses). Now it seems that it is
>> your research background (for example holding a PhD) what mainly counts to
>> aspire to a lecturing position.
>> >
>> > If this is the case, how it will affect the working prospects of those
>> design graduates trained by researchers?
>> >
>> > What is the value of research experience against professional
>> experience in the context of teaching undergraduate and MA design students?
>> >
>> > Discuss,
>> >
>> > Liliana & Carlos
>> >
>> >
>> > Liliana Rodriguez
>> > Doctoral Researcher @ Loughborough University
>> > www.lulugaia.wordpress.com/
>> > www.lboro.academia.edu/LilianaRodriguez
>> >
>> > Carlos Peralta Ph.D (Cantab)
>> > Senior Lecture in Design
>> > College of Arts & Humanities
>> > University of Brighton
>> > http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/staff/carlos-peralta
>> >
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > In the official 2014 government assessment of our research the
>> following 12 areas were found to have world-leading research: Allied Health
>> Professions; Architecture & Built Environment; Art & Design; Business &
>> Management Studies; Communication, Cultural & Media Studies; English
>> Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Law;
>> Music, Drama & Dance; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy.
>> >
>> > This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named
>> > recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in
>> > error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show
>> > them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and
>> > then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions
>> > expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
>> > represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University.
>> > Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and
>> attachments are
>> > free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing
>> > practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
>> > Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which
>> > may not be a 100% secure communications
>> >
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 13:05:42 +0000
>> From:    Amy Cheng <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Respect
>>
>> I'll bite.
>>
>> Perhaps it's time to rethink the usability of the list. IMHO google
>> groups tend to have high readership and work well. Members get digests
>> emailed to them every so often with new topics, and can choose which
>> subjects to reply too (privately or publicly) pertaining to what is
>> relevant to them. Given that there is such a diversity of subscribers
>> perhaps this is a great way to practice our user research and redesign the
>> way we share our expertise and wisdom?
>>
>> Email can sometimes seem like a production blocker, especially for those
>> who are more important than I, this might just be the perfect timing to
>> reassess.
>>
>> Humbly,
>> Amy
>>
>> ***
>>
>> > it seems sensible that the way to change the list is to
>> > participate.
>>
>> Mic drop.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 15:31:55 +0200
>> From:    Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Pressure for publication
>>
>> Dear Mx. Bishop,
>>
>> While I understand your position, I take a different view. I am aware
>> that some organisations seem to believe that rejection rate equals high
>> quality. Serious journals and serious research organisations do not use
>> this as a metric. The key metrics are impact factor and coverage in ISI Web
>> of Science, Scopus, or both. If publishers and organisations use
>> inappropriate metrics, I’d suggest choosing different target journals.
>>
>> Nevertheless, general reader interest based on public journalism is not a
>> valid criterion for choosing research articles. Recent news stories suggest
>> that choosing articles based on “reader interest” rather than scientific
>> value lead to scandals and retractions — often in the same newspapers that
>> covered catchy but poorly reviewed articles. The New York Times recently
>> published several articles on this problem: Editorial Board (2015), Roston
>> (2015), Scheiber (2015).
>>
>> Since you edit for journalistic reader interest while I edit a
>> peer-reviewed research journal, we are in different fields. Our goals are
>> different, and our standards and methods will differ. Since our background
>> and editorial goals differ, I do not expect you to share my views. Since
>> you are a journalist, however, I do expect that you should describe the
>> editorial work of a research journal based on what actually takes place in
>> the field.
>>
>> In this respect, I disagree with your understanding of what it means to
>> edit a research journal. The editor of a peer-reviewed research journal is
>> far more than “a glorified review handler.” I am an editor and advisor for
>> half a dozen peer reviewed journals, and editor-in-chief of a new journal,
>> so I have some experience with research journals. Every editor makes a wide
>> range of strategic and tactical decisions, working with editors,
>> publishers, staff, and authors to realise the goals of the journal.
>>
>> Two recent books describe the editorial process of a research journal in
>> detail: Opening the Black Box of Editorship by Baruch, Konrad, Aguinis, and
>> Starbuck (2008), and What Editors Want: An Author's Guide to Scientific
>> Journal Publishing by Benson and Silver (2013).
>>
>> This is my second post on this topic. It is time for me to stop here and
>> leave the floor to others.
>>
>> Warm wishes,
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The
>> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
>> Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>>
>> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
>> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
>> Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
>> University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>>
>> --
>>
>> References
>>
>> Baruch, Yehudi, Alison M. Konrad, Herman Aguinis, and William H.
>> Starbuck. 2008. Opening the Black Box of Editorship. London: Palsgrave
>> Macmillan.
>>
>> Benson, Phillipa, and Susan Silver. 2013. What Editors Want: An Author's
>> Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing. (Chicago Guides to Writing,
>> Editing, and Publishing.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
>>
>> Editorial Board. 2015. “Scientists Who Cheat.” The New York Times, June
>> 1, 2015. URL
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/opinion/scientists-who-cheat.html?_r=0
>>
>> Roston, Michael. 2015. “Retracted Scientific Studies: A Growing List.”
>> New York Times, May 28, 2015. URL:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/28/science/retractions-scientific-studies.html
>>
>> Scheiber, Noam. 2015. "Beyond Publish or Perish, Academic Papers Look to
>> Make a Splash.” New York Times, May 31, 2015. URL:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/business/beyond-publish-or-perish-scientific-papers-look-to-make-splash.html?_r=0
>>
>> —
>>
>> Jonathan Bishop wrote:
>>
>> —snip—
>>
>> I have had publications of mine criticised by anonymous reviewers because
>> of the publisher having a 67% acceptance rate. Equally, I have been a
>> member of organisations who in relation to their publications have asked
>> what they can do to get their acceptance rate down. So even if you are not
>> aware of it as a metric, others in academia still use it.
>>
>> You misinterpret my definition of "quality control." I have been a
>> journalist in various forms since 1999. For me whether something is
>> published should be on the basis of whether it will be interesting to
>> readers. All the other issues around rigour, including those you mention,
>> can be resolved by the use of reviewers and advising authors directly.
>>
>> I see myself as an editor in the journalist sense, as someone who works
>> with authors to improve their papers, and not a glorified review handler as
>> many others seem to be.
>>
>> —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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 15:53:08 +0200
>> From:    Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: List Usability
>>
>> Dear Amy,
>>
>> This is really a new thread. It has to do list usability rather than
>> respect, so I’ve changed the header.
>>
>> Google Groups, LinkedIn, and many other lists offer systems. One or two
>> focus specifically on design research, and many focus on design. I don’t
>> find them especially helpful — they are difficult to track, and despite the
>> features for immediate usability, they do not work well for long-term
>> research conversations. They do indeed have high readership — so do some of
>> the LinkedIn Groups. High readership is not the main criterion for a
>> research community.
>>
>> JISCMAIL was specifically designed for academic communities. They
>> switched to ListServ from the old Mailserv system. There are other decent
>> systems for academic groups and research communities, but they are not
>> free, and only an organisation such as JISCMAIL or its counterparts in
>> other nations can afford them and maintain them with the extensive archives
>> that make such lists useful.
>>
>> If you feel that Google offers potential benefits, why not establish such
>> a list and trial it? Rob Curedale launched a design research list on
>> LinkedIn. Some of us subscribe there as well as here. I find the
>> conversations to be far more terse, and the system is difficult to use, but
>> interesting things pop up from time to time.
>>
>> If I were to try another system, I would continue to subscribe and read
>> here. So far, other lists and other systems have not managed to generate
>> rich, durable conversations of the kind that have taken place here for the
>> past fifteen years, and none of them offers the comprehensive, searchable
>> archives that make this list so valuable to researchers and research
>> students. Moreover, private owners such as Google or LinkedIn have no
>> ongoing obligation to users. Such services can vanish overnight, and when
>> you use these services, you agree to their terms and limits.
>>
>> JISCMAIL is a publicly funded service of the United Kingdom. It may well
>> vanish or change as a result of government policy decisions, but this seems
>> to me unlikely in a world where the UK remains one of the world’s leading
>> nations for university education and research.
>>
>> It is my belief that this list is highly usable. There are open questions
>> on list culture, behaviour, and other issues. The usability of the system
>> and its stability as a public resource are another matter entirely.
>>
>> Experiments are always worth trying. Rob has had immense success with his
>> Linked projects — with over 100,000 subscribers, his audience is far
>> greater than the audience for PhD-Design. Google might be worth a go. At
>> the same time, PhD-Design remains valuable for those who find this system
>> usable.
>>
>> To quote Morgan Freeman in Thick as Thieves, “I’m just saying, is all.”
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Chair Professor of Design Innovation
>> Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai,
>> China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation
>> | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>>
>> —
>>
>> Amy Cheng wrote:
>>
>> —snip—
>>
>> Perhaps it's time to rethink the usability of the list. IMHO google
>> groups tend to have high readership and work well. Members get digests
>> emailed to them every so often with new topics, and can choose which
>> subjects to reply too (privately or publicly) pertaining to what is
>> relevant to them. Given that there is such a diversity of subscribers
>> perhaps this is a great way to practice our user research and redesign the
>> way we share our expertise and wisdom?
>>
>> —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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 10:33:34 -0400
>> From:    Filippo Salustri <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: List Usability
>>
>> Ken, Amy, et al,
>> I'm well acquainted with Google Groups.  Ryerson subscribes to Google Apps
>> for Higher Ed, so we have special access to pretty much all of Google's
>> services, but sequestered from the rest of the world, and tailored a bit
>> to
>> academic needs.
>> The key features, as I see them, of Groups that ListServ doesn't really
>> have, are:
>> * web interface.  If one is inclined to prefer pull rather than push
>> technology, then the web interface works well.  That is, rather than get
>> emails, you intentionally visit a web version.  I'm a push guy; I don't
>> mind email at all.  But I do recognize there are many pull-types out
>> there.
>> * security. All of google's immense security team is behind you.
>> * Drive integration. Allows one to share *without uploading/transmitting
>> attachments* all kinds of other media. Whether you prefer push or pull,
>> this helps lower the amount of space your mailbox takes up.
>> * categories/labels/tags. Allows finer-grained organization of posts - esp
>> in the web interface view - to simplify searching for stuff.
>> * administrative control. There are lots of options to fine tune who has
>> access, to what extent, and how they receive information. Users can
>> customize that themselves.
>>
>> It's true that JISCmail has done right by us for a very long time, and
>> that
>> means a lot.
>>
>> Still, I wouldn't mind giving Groups a shot, just to see what happens.
>> One
>> can never tell.
>>
>> Amy, depending on how interested/excited you are by the possibility of
>> using Groups, get in touch with me off-line and we can discuss it further
>> -
>> see if the idea really "has legs."
>>
>> \V/_  /fas
>>
>> *Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>>
>> On 6 June 2015 at 09:53, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Amy,
>> >
>> > This is really a new thread. It has to do list usability rather than
>> > respect, so I’ve changed the header.
>> >
>> > Google Groups, LinkedIn, and many other lists offer systems. One or two
>> > focus specifically on design research, and many focus on design. I don’t
>> > find them especially helpful — they are difficult to track, and despite
>> the
>> > features for immediate usability, they do not work well for long-term
>> > research conversations. They do indeed have high readership — so do
>> some of
>> > the LinkedIn Groups. High readership is not the main criterion for a
>> > research community.
>> >
>> > JISCMAIL was specifically designed for academic communities. They
>> switched
>> > to ListServ from the old Mailserv system. There are other decent systems
>> > for academic groups and research communities, but they are not free, and
>> > only an organisation such as JISCMAIL or its counterparts in other
>> nations
>> > can afford them and maintain them with the extensive archives that make
>> > such lists useful.
>> >
>> > If you feel that Google offers potential benefits, why not establish
>> such
>> > a list and trial it? Rob Curedale launched a design research list on
>> > LinkedIn. Some of us subscribe there as well as here. I find the
>> > conversations to be far more terse, and the system is difficult to use,
>> but
>> > interesting things pop up from time to time.
>> >
>> > If I were to try another system, I would continue to subscribe and read
>> > here. So far, other lists and other systems have not managed to generate
>> > rich, durable conversations of the kind that have taken place here for
>> the
>> > past fifteen years, and none of them offers the comprehensive,
>> searchable
>> > archives that make this list so valuable to researchers and research
>> > students. Moreover, private owners such as Google or LinkedIn have no
>> > ongoing obligation to users. Such services can vanish overnight, and
>> when
>> > you use these services, you agree to their terms and limits.
>> >
>> > JISCMAIL is a publicly funded service of the United Kingdom. It may well
>> > vanish or change as a result of government policy decisions, but this
>> seems
>> > to me unlikely in a world where the UK remains one of the world’s
>> leading
>> > nations for university education and research.
>> >
>> > It is my belief that this list is highly usable. There are open
>> questions
>> > on list culture, behaviour, and other issues. The usability of the
>> system
>> > and its stability as a public resource are another matter entirely.
>> >
>> > Experiments are always worth trying. Rob has had immense success with
>> his
>> > Linked projects — with over 100,000 subscribers, his audience is far
>> > greater than the audience for PhD-Design. Google might be worth a go. At
>> > the same time, PhD-Design remains valuable for those who find this
>> system
>> > usable.
>> >
>> > To quote Morgan Freeman in Thick as Thieves, “I’m just saying, is all.”
>> >
>> > Ken
>> >
>> > Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Chair Professor of Design Innovation
>> > Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University |
>> Shanghai,
>> > China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design
>> Innovation
>> > | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>> >
>> > —
>> >
>> > Amy Cheng wrote:
>> >
>> > —snip—
>> >
>> > Perhaps it's time to rethink the usability of the list. IMHO google
>> groups
>> > tend to have high readership and work well. Members get digests emailed
>> to
>> > them every so often with new topics, and can choose which subjects to
>> reply
>> > too (privately or publicly) pertaining to what is relevant to them.
>> Given
>> > that there is such a diversity of subscribers perhaps this is a great
>> way
>> > to practice our user research and redesign the way we share our
>> expertise
>> > and wisdom?
>> >
>> > —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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 15:56:53 +0100
>> From:    Jonathan Bishop <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Pressure for publication
>>
>> Ken,
>>
>> I think you misunderstand my position. I adhere to the same peer-review
>> standards of all edited publications. But like many academics today, I am
>> not convinced that the opinion of reviewers should be in any way binding
>> on
>> my decisions. Take a look at this article where another academic
>> criticises
>> the peer-review system:
>>
>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-peer-reviews-are-a-sacred-cow-ready-to-be-slaughtered-says-former-editor-of-bmj-10196077.html
>>
>> I don't think without having access to my CV you can make any judgement as
>> to my academic credentials. I regularly review for other journals, many
>> whom get in contact with me directly if the paper is on social media and
>> its effects.
>>
>> But being in the private sector and not the public sector I see it as
>> inefficient to ask for a paper to be reviewed if I have not already
>> decided
>> to accept in. When I advertise jobs, the only time I invite a candidate to
>> a face-to-face interview is when I have already decided to offer them a
>> job
>> based on their submissions. It might be that if journals had to pay
>> reviewers for their time they would be less likely to waste it with papers
>> they are unlikely to accept for whatever reason.
>>
>> I once submitted a paper to Nature, which wasn't sent for review. Whilst I
>> didn't like it at the time, having now edited or co-edited several books
>> and special issues, I have adopted such a policy.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Jonathan Bishop
>> BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM
>> FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FCLIP, FBCS CITP
>>
>> Author of over 75 research publications.
>> Editor of Examining the Concepts, Issues and Implications of Internet
>> Trolling, Transforming Politics and Policy in the Digital Age, and
>> Gamification for Human Factors Integration: Social, Educational and
>> Psychological Issues
>>
>> Envoyé par mon ordinateur
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, 6 June 2015, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Mx. Bishop,
>> >
>> > While I understand your position, I take a different view. I am aware
>> that
>> > some organisations seem to believe that rejection rate equals high
>> quality.
>> > Serious journals and serious research organisations do not use this as a
>> > metric. The key metrics are impact factor and coverage in ISI Web of
>> > Science, Scopus, or both. If publishers and organisations use
>> inappropriate
>> > metrics, I’d suggest choosing different target journals.
>> >
>> > Nevertheless, general reader interest based on public journalism is not
>> a
>> > valid criterion for choosing research articles. Recent news stories
>> suggest
>> > that choosing articles based on “reader interest” rather than scientific
>> > value lead to scandals and retractions — often in the same newspapers
>> that
>> > covered catchy but poorly reviewed articles. The New York Times recently
>> > published several articles on this problem: Editorial Board (2015),
>> Roston
>> > (2015), Scheiber (2015).
>> >
>> > Since you edit for journalistic reader interest while I edit a
>> > peer-reviewed research journal, we are in different fields. Our goals
>> are
>> > different, and our standards and methods will differ. Since our
>> background
>> > and editorial goals differ, I do not expect you to share my views. Since
>> > you are a journalist, however, I do expect that you should describe the
>> > editorial work of a research journal based on what actually takes place
>> in
>> > the field.
>> >
>> > In this respect, I disagree with your understanding of what it means to
>> > edit a research journal. The editor of a peer-reviewed research journal
>> is
>> > far more than “a glorified review handler.” I am an editor and advisor
>> for
>> > half a dozen peer reviewed journals, and editor-in-chief of a new
>> journal,
>> > so I have some experience with research journals. Every editor makes a
>> wide
>> > range of strategic and tactical decisions, working with editors,
>> > publishers, staff, and authors to realise the goals of the journal.
>> >
>> > Two recent books describe the editorial process of a research journal in
>> > detail: Opening the Black Box of Editorship by Baruch, Konrad, Aguinis,
>> and
>> > Starbuck (2008), and What Editors Want: An Author's Guide to Scientific
>> > Journal Publishing by Benson and Silver (2013).
>> >
>> > This is my second post on this topic. It is time for me to stop here and
>> > leave the floor to others.
>> >
>> > Warm wishes,
>> >
>> > Ken
>> >
>> > Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The
>> > Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
>> > Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>> >
>> > Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
>> > Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
>> > Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
>> > University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > References
>> >
>> > Baruch, Yehudi, Alison M. Konrad, Herman Aguinis, and William H.
>> Starbuck.
>> > 2008. Opening the Black Box of Editorship. London: Palsgrave Macmillan.
>> >
>> > Benson, Phillipa, and Susan Silver. 2013. What Editors Want: An Author's
>> > Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing. (Chicago Guides to Writing,
>> > Editing, and Publishing.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
>> >
>> > Editorial Board. 2015. “Scientists Who Cheat.” The New York Times, June
>> 1,
>> > 2015. URL
>> >
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/opinion/scientists-who-cheat.html?_r=0
>> >
>> > Roston, Michael. 2015. “Retracted Scientific Studies: A Growing List.”
>> New
>> > York Times, May 28, 2015. URL:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/28/science/retractions-scientific-studies.html
>> >
>> > Scheiber, Noam. 2015. "Beyond Publish or Perish, Academic Papers Look to
>> > Make a Splash.” New York Times, May 31, 2015. URL:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/business/beyond-publish-or-perish-scientific-papers-look-to-make-splash.html?_r=0
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jonathan Bishop
>> BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM
>> FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FCLIP, FBCS CITP
>>
>> Author of over 75 research publications.
>> Editor of Examining the Concepts, Issues and Implications of Internet
>> Trolling, Transforming Politics and Policy in the Digital Age, and
>> Gamification for Human Factors Integration: Social, Educational and
>> Psychological Issues
>>
>> Envoyé par mon ordinateur
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sat, 6 Jun 2015 16:37:01 +0100
>> From:    Carlos Pires <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: List Usability
>>
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>> When, in a decade or so, your content becomes irreversibly sequestered by
>> private corporations, maybe you are able to retrieve this humble email that
>> warned you not to rely on private companies for public matters. For
>> professional reasons I was obliged to use Google's products (a lot more
>> products than Google Groups), and I feel the clutch. Anyone who thinks for
>> a minute that there might ever be such a thing as a free lunch is beeing
>> naïve, and will eventually become lunch herself.
>>
>> If you don't like getting an email everytime someone replies to a topic,
>> just set your preferences to get a daily or weekly digest instead.
>>
>> The real shortcomings of Jiscmail are:
>> 1. Failure to process images and attachments.
>> 2. Breaking some rich text messages.
>>
>> Maybe the way forward would be to put pressure on Jiscmail to solve these
>> problems, or to provide a public API. With a public API, I would myself be
>> able to create a more usable interface, as would many others.
>>
>>
>> ==================================
>> Carlos Pires
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> [log in to unmask]
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL
>>
>> Check the project blog:
>> http://thegolemproject.com
>>
>> On 06/06/2015, at 15:33, Filippo Salustri wrote:
>>
>> > Ken, Amy, et al,
>> > I'm well acquainted with Google Groups.  Ryerson subscribes to Google
>> Apps
>> > for Higher Ed, so we have special access to pretty much all of Google's
>> > services, but sequestered from the rest of the world, and tailored a
>> bit to
>> > academic needs.
>> > The key features, as I see them, of Groups that ListServ doesn't really
>> > have, are:
>> > * web interface.  If one is inclined to prefer pull rather than push
>> > technology, then the web interface works well.  That is, rather than get
>> > emails, you intentionally visit a web version.  I'm a push guy; I don't
>> > mind email at all.  But I do recognize there are many pull-types out
>> there.
>> > * security. All of google's immense security team is behind you.
>> > * Drive integration. Allows one to share *without uploading/transmitting
>> > attachments* all kinds of other media. Whether you prefer push or pull,
>> > this helps lower the amount of space your mailbox takes up.
>> > * categories/labels/tags. Allows finer-grained organization of posts -
>> esp
>> > in the web interface view - to simplify searching for stuff.
>> > * administrative control. There are lots of options to fine tune who has
>> > access, to what extent, and how they receive information. Users can
>> > customize that themselves.
>> >
>> > It's true that JISCmail has done right by us for a very long time, and
>> that
>> > means a lot.
>> >
>> > Still, I wouldn't mind giving Groups a shot, just to see what happens.
>> One
>> > can never tell.
>> >
>> > Amy, depending on how interested/excited you are by the possibility of
>> > using Groups, get in touch with me off-line and we can discuss it
>> further -
>> > see if the idea really "has legs."
>> >
>> > \V/_  /fas
>> >
>> > *Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
>> > Email: [log in to unmask]
>> > http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>> >
>> > On 6 June 2015 at 09:53, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Amy,
>> >>
>> >> This is really a new thread. It has to do list usability rather than
>> >> respect, so I’ve changed the header.
>> >>
>> >> Google Groups, LinkedIn, and many other lists offer systems. One or two
>> >> focus specifically on design research, and many focus on design. I
>> don’t
>> >> find them especially helpful — they are difficult to track, and
>> despite the
>> >> features for immediate usability, they do not work well for long-term
>> >> research conversations. They do indeed have high readership — so do
>> some of
>> >> the LinkedIn Groups. High readership is not the main criterion for a
>> >> research community.
>> >>
>> >> JISCMAIL was specifically designed for academic communities. They
>> switched
>> >> to ListServ from the old Mailserv system. There are other decent
>> systems
>> >> for academic groups and research communities, but they are not free,
>> and
>> >> only an organisation such as JISCMAIL or its counterparts in other
>> nations
>> >> can afford them and maintain them with the extensive archives that make
>> >> such lists useful.
>> >>
>> >> If you feel that Google offers potential benefits, why not establish
>> such
>> >> a list and trial it? Rob Curedale launched a design research list on
>> >> LinkedIn. Some of us subscribe there as well as here. I find the
>> >> conversations to be far more terse, and the system is difficult to
>> use, but
>> >> interesting things pop up from time to time.
>> >>
>> >> If I were to try another system, I would continue to subscribe and read
>> >> here. So far, other lists and other systems have not managed to
>> generate
>> >> rich, durabl
>
> ...


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------