Public peer review of the kind described there has already been in use in some journals for years, and their experience suggests that it increases the quality of both the sbumissions and the reviews, while decreasing the load for reviewers and making their work visible (if they choose not to remain anonymous).
For a recent overview, see http://www.slideshare.net/UlrichPoeschl/poschl-oaspa-prague2010up7 . Daniel On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > Copying this to new humanities working group! > > Could be worth getting in touch? > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Mr. Puneet Kishor <[email protected]> > wrote: >> cnāwan vs. crūdan >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?hp=&pagewanted=all >> >> >> -- >> Puneet Kishor http://punkish.org >> Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org >> Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org >> Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor >> Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science >> ======================================================================= >> >> _______________________________________________ >> okfn-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss >> >> > > > > -- > Jonathan Gray > > Community Coordinator > The Open Knowledge Foundation > http://blog.okfn.org > > http://twitter.com/jwyg > http://identi.ca/jwyg > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > -- http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
