Datasets:
HDTenEightyP
/
UTZOO

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
7.33k
Keywords: peer review noise quality control
Message-ID: <1990Nov13.172609.2302@daimi.aau.dk>
Date: 13 Nov 90 17:26:09 GMT
Sender: dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky)
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Lines: 564
Consensus Journals:
Invitational journals based upon peer consensus
David S. Stodolsky
Roskilde University Centre
DK-4000 Roskilde
david@ruc.dk
Abstract
Computer networks open new possibilities for
scientific communication in terms of
quality, efficiency, and rapidity. Consensus
journals have the economy of invitational
journals and the objectivity of journals
based upon the peer review. That is, all
articles are published and the reader
benefits from article selection based upon
impartial refereeing. An additional benefit
of consensus journals is that the
negotiation process, that typically occurs
prior to publication, is automated, thus
saving efforts of participants.
Readers submit reviews that evaluate
articles on agreed dimensions. A statistical
procedure is used to identify the most
knowledgeable representative of each
consensus position and these persons are
invited to submit articles that justify the
review judgments they have submitted. A
major advantage of this approach is the
ability to develop reputation without
article publication.
The approach includes a protection mechanism
based upon pseudonyms, that substitutes for
the protection of anonymity typical with
scientific journals. This reduces the
potential for irresponsible behavior and
facilitates reputation development. The
level of quality enhancement is superior to
that achievable with anonymous peer review.
Eliminating the editor and the delay
associated with conventional refereeing
makes message quality enhancement available
in message systems for educational and
business environments.
____________________________________________________________________
This document has been prepared for electronic publication.
Underscore characters indicate the start and end of italicized
character sequences. Figures and tables assume a monospace font.
Citation: Stodolsky, D. S. (1990). Consensus Journals: Invitational
journals based upon peer consensus. _Datalogiske Skrifter_ (Writings
on Computer Science). No. 29 / 1990. Roskilde University Centre,
Institute of Geography, Socioeconomic Analysis, and Computer
Science. (ISSN 0109-9779-29)
____________________________________________________________________
Invitational journals can be distinguished from typical scholarly
journals by the sequence of events that results in publication of an
article. The sequence of events with a typical journal starts with
the writing of an article. The article is then transmitted to an
editor and refereed. After a successful review, often contingent
upon negotiated revisions, the article is published and read. With
invitational journals, however, events are reversed. The tentative
decision to publish an author is made first, often based upon the
reading of previous work by that author. Then negotiation between
the editor and author occurs, or there is informal refereeing of a
proposal, which if successful, results in the writing of an article.
The great advantage of this second sequence -- read, negotiate,
write -- is that almost every article written gets published. The
disadvantage is that selection of authors is somewhat arbitrary and
there is no way an unknown author can get published. The objective
of this article is to outline a method of scientific communication
that has the economy of invitational journals and the objectivity of
journals based upon the peer review. These self-edited journals will
be called _consensus journals_ in order to distinguish them from
conventional invitational journals.
Any reader of an article in a consensus journal can act as a
referee. Assume, for simplicity, that referees send reviews to a
mediator. At a deadline, the mediator performs calculations and
issues invitations to the referees who have been selected as new
authors (Figure 1). These calculations are implicit negotiations,