hi, I have some comments as a person from Academia (and not involved in Wikimania process in any way):
1. Short reviews are definitely not helping in addressing the frustration of rejection, yet are quite common in academic peer reviewing, especially for conferences. 2. Double blind peer review (not knowing who is reviewed, and not knowing who reviews) is a standard in Academia, although some perceive it as contributing to lack of responsibility (especially true in competitive journal submissions). 3. Two reviewers per submission is absolutely on par with the conference standards I'm used to. Sometimes there are three, but two is absolutely acceptable (although a third opinion should be used if the two disagree too much). 4. It could be useful to sensitize the reviewers that the main purpose of the review is to help the author to do better next time. 5. All this is volunteer work. We should be, generally, grateful to reviewers (but in the same time grateful to the contributors, too). best, dj On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Maarten Dammers <[email protected]> wrote: > What kind of ridiculous process is this? This is all I got: > > =============== > > ----------------------- REVIEW 1 --------------------- > PAPER: 194 > TITLE: GLAM+Wikidata > AUTHORS: Sandra Fauconnier and Maarten Dammers > > OVERALL EVALUATION: 8 (Very good) > > ----------- REVIEW ----------- > 8 > > > ----------------------- REVIEW 2 --------------------- > PAPER: 194 > TITLE: GLAM+Wikidata > AUTHORS: Sandra Fauconnier and Maarten Dammers > > OVERALL EVALUATION: 6 (Rather interesting) > > ----------- REVIEW ----------- > 6 > > ============== > > So only two people reviewed this? Who are these people? Why is this secret? > Last year I had 5 people reviewing my submission [1]. > > Maarten > > [1] https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submission_review/5 > > > Op 3-2-2016 om 23:15 schreef Andy Mabbett: > > I've just received feedback on one of my pitches saying, in part: > > "Bad boy Andy! This is supposed to be an anonymous review process, so > starting your abstract with your own name, is not entirely fair." > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing > [email protected]https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > > -- __________________________ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i grupy badawczej NeRDS Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://n <http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl/>wrds.kozminski.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
