Also - normally in Academia - if there are two strongly opposite reviews (one very positive, one very negative) a typical procedure is to send the submission to the third one.
2016-02-04 10:54 GMT+01:00 Tomasz Ganicz <[email protected]>: > Well I think that double blind peer review hardly make sense here, from > the reviewer POV, as we are in fact small community and it is easy to > guess who was a submiter in most cases. For example - if there is a > submission about project X in country Y, which was funded by WMF grant - it > is very easy to find out who was grantee and it is rather obvious that that > person is a submitter :-) > > Also judging from the several reviewers comments which I saw already - > they did not follow the very vague criteria which was posted here: > > > https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Critical_issues_presentations#Evaluation > > Normally - at least in Academia - reviewers are forced directly (by the > review form) to address their opinion in relation to the criteria. The > criteria were: > > " > > 1. problems and possible solutions in a specific field > 2. proposals for others to replicate > 3. issues (positive or negative) which have emerged from projects > 4. issues you want to raise which you feel have not been discussed yet > 5. issues which are at the centre of an online debate that you would > like to address offline > > " > > 1-4 are IMHO relatively easy to evaluate - I would expect from the reviews > to answer yes or no to them. 5 is a bit tricky as it depends strongly of > what the reviewer think is "at the centre" - but I would expect that they > at least explain in few words here what they think is "at the centre" or > not :-) > > > 2016-02-04 0:22 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]>: > >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
