On 17/07/08 18:09, Sören Auer wrote: > Rufus Pollock wrote: >> This sounds like a great initiative. Looking at the wiki I was >> particularly struck by your mention of 'Open Peer Review'. This is >> something I've recently been thinking about quite a bit in the context >> of an economics paper I'm writing with an academic colleague on the >> subject of efficient dissemination of scholarly information. This is >> still at an early stage but the basic ideas in it are set out in the >> introduction a portion of which I include below (for those who prefer >> things with a url I've just posted online at [1]) > > I completely agree, the possibilities of modern technology (such as the > Web, social networks, semantic technologies) are by far not yet > exhausted in the scientific world. A crucial aspect of peer-review and > filtering is also the reward dimension. Researchers whose work pass a
Yes this is actually dicussed in the full paper where we explicitly mention that: "a second aspect of filtering is `Quality Signalling' for the purpose of resource allocation (jobs, grants etc)". I have to say that I think that this quality evaluation aspect can be derived at almost no cost once you have a decent filtering system in place and therefore, while in some sense a separate goal, can be seen as in some sense derivative from plain filtering. > thorough review process and are accepted at a journal or conference with > much filtering (aka low acceptance rate) are rewarded with a prestigious > publication, which beautifies the CV and the track record. An open peer > review would have to provide a similar reward mechanism. Sure though I would emphasize that one needs to distinguish reward from evaluation. Filtering will automatically result in simple ways to do evaluation (as just discussed). How that evaluation is transformed into a reward is a distinct, though obviously related, issue. > Within our ParticipatoryResearch concept there will still be heavy > filtering, since grant money is limited as opposed to shelf space on the Again I would distinguish filtering/ranking from the decision of which from that set one chooses to fund. The same filtering/ranking algorithm can be used whether one decides to fund 2 or 20 proposals. > Web. BTW: Looks like first discussions are currently starting within the > EU how FP8 will be tailored - I sent out information and pointers to > <http://wiki.cofundos.org> to some people there, but the matter will be > urged a little more if we could get some more support statements at: > > <http://wiki.cofundos.org/Supporters> I've signed. > I would be very thankful if you would add yourself or invite your > friends and colleagues to do so too. Am doing. Regards, Rufus PS: some grammatical improvements you could make to http://wiki.cofundos.org/Concept can not -> cannot Project is running: involved investigators report publicly (e.g. Weblog) about the proceeding, enables stakeholders to influence the projects e.g. on changed requirements or promising alternative approaches appear -> Project in progress: investigators report publicly (e.g. via a weblog) on progress. This enable stakeholders to be continuously involved, e.g. by suggesting changes in requirements or pointing out promising alternatives avenues for investigation that may appear _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
