HDTenEightyP/UTZOO · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 7.33k
that is, they predict which persons would have been selected to
respond to the reviewed article if referees has actually negotiated
and reached a consensus. One benefit of consensus journals is that
the negotiation process is automated, thus saving participant
effort.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

------ R: Review ------- M: Invitation -------
\| Read \|----------->\| Calc. \|--------------->\| Write \|----------->
------ ------- ------- R: Article
\|
\| R: Renege
R = Referee Calc. = Calculate consensus \|
M = Mediator V

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. Simplified cycle of operation for a consensus journal


The simplified cycle of operation for a consensus journal shows
actions in boxes and messages as arrows. In this simplified cycle,
referees invited to publish (and justify the reviews they have
submitted) have a choice of submitting their article by a deadline
or reneging on the promise implied by their review. This simplified
cycle of operation assumes, additionally, that consensus positions
can be calculated and that published articles are retained
indefinitely. Eliminating these assumptions requires a more
articulated cycle of operation and additional message types.

Before considering a more articulated cycle of operation, however,
it is necessary to note an important feature of peer review that
contributes to impartial judgment. This feature is a protection
mechanism, typically anonymity, that shields referees from pressures
that might be associated with evaluation of a colleague. Further,
names and affiliations of authors are often hidden from referees to
ensure that only article content is the basis for evaluation.
Protection can be alternatively be provided by a pseudonym system.
This has the advantage of reducing opportunities for irresponsible
behavior as compared to systems based upon anonymity (Stodolsky,
1990). It has a further advantage of permitting reputation
development through the refereeing alone, thereby making it possible
to establish a reputation without contributing articles.

When there are multiple referees, it is important that their
judgments are independent, so referee reports must not be made
available until all have been submitted. This last requirement can
be met by ensuring that reviews transmitted to the mediator are
hidden until the deadline. The dynamics and implementation of
protection systems are beyond the scope of this article, so only the
necessity for the simultaneous release of information is addressed
here.

Definition of message types

While in the simplest case, messages in the consensus journal
environment consist of only articles and reviews (Stodolsky, 1990),
considerations of effective negotiation and of storage management
suggest defining additional message types. There are five types of
messages transmitted in the consensus journal environment.

_Article

Articles, while shorter than those usually seen in conventional
journals, will most often play the same role. However, it is quite
possible to have an article in a consensus journal that is only a
few lines long, and that can only be understood in connection with
the review message it follows and its target article.

_ Review

Review messages must be distinguished from conventional reviews
because they are characterized by a vector of numbers that summarize
a reader's reaction to an article. If we think of articles as nodes
in a graph or pages in a hypertext network, then review messages are
the labels on arcs or links that connect the articles. Reviews can
go beyond merely evaluating an article, by offering to provide new
information that may be essential to support the target article's
position. Review messages also serve as a commitment to deliver a
justification of the reader's judgment, if invited.

_ Invitation

Invitations are public, and therefore, impossible to refuse without
some loss of reputation. This makes them somewhat different than
invitations from an editor of a journal. In effect, the invitation
says, "We offer you storage space for an article." Also, a person
may post an invitation for themselves during the negotiation stage
of review, if they feel confident they can support the position
claimed in their review message.

_ Cancellation

It is possible for an author to cancel an article, thereby releasing
the associated storage space. The article then goes off-line (i.e.,
"out of print") along with its reviews and the articles that were
dependent upon it for their place in storage. This would typically
occur during explicit negotiation after the author had seen the
article's reviews. It could, however, occur much later, when a new

that is, they predict which persons would have been selected to

respond to the reviewed article if referees has actually negotiated

and reached a consensus. One benefit of consensus journals is that

the negotiation process is automated, thus saving participant

effort.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

------ R: Review ------- M: Invitation -------

| Read |----------->| Calc. |--------------->| Write |----------->

------ ------- ------- R: Article

|

| R: Renege

R = Referee Calc. = Calculate consensus |

M = Mediator V

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1. Simplified cycle of operation for a consensus journal

The simplified cycle of operation for a consensus journal shows

actions in boxes and messages as arrows. In this simplified cycle,

referees invited to publish (and justify the reviews they have

submitted) have a choice of submitting their article by a deadline

or reneging on the promise implied by their review. This simplified

cycle of operation assumes, additionally, that consensus positions

can be calculated and that published articles are retained

indefinitely. Eliminating these assumptions requires a more

articulated cycle of operation and additional message types.

Before considering a more articulated cycle of operation, however,

it is necessary to note an important feature of peer review that

contributes to impartial judgment. This feature is a protection

mechanism, typically anonymity, that shields referees from pressures

that might be associated with evaluation of a colleague. Further,

names and affiliations of authors are often hidden from referees to

ensure that only article content is the basis for evaluation.

Protection can be alternatively be provided by a pseudonym system.

This has the advantage of reducing opportunities for irresponsible

behavior as compared to systems based upon anonymity (Stodolsky,

1990). It has a further advantage of permitting reputation

development through the refereeing alone, thereby making it possible

to establish a reputation without contributing articles.

When there are multiple referees, it is important that their

judgments are independent, so referee reports must not be made

available until all have been submitted. This last requirement can

be met by ensuring that reviews transmitted to the mediator are

hidden until the deadline. The dynamics and implementation of

protection systems are beyond the scope of this article, so only the

necessity for the simultaneous release of information is addressed

here.

Definition of message types

While in the simplest case, messages in the consensus journal

environment consist of only articles and reviews (Stodolsky, 1990),

considerations of effective negotiation and of storage management

suggest defining additional message types. There are five types of

messages transmitted in the consensus journal environment.

_Article

Articles, while shorter than those usually seen in conventional

journals, will most often play the same role. However, it is quite

possible to have an article in a consensus journal that is only a

few lines long, and that can only be understood in connection with

the review message it follows and its target article.

_ Review

Review messages must be distinguished from conventional reviews

because they are characterized by a vector of numbers that summarize

a reader's reaction to an article. If we think of articles as nodes

in a graph or pages in a hypertext network, then review messages are

the labels on arcs or links that connect the articles. Reviews can

go beyond merely evaluating an article, by offering to provide new

information that may be essential to support the target article's

position. Review messages also serve as a commitment to deliver a

justification of the reader's judgment, if invited.

_ Invitation

Invitations are public, and therefore, impossible to refuse without

some loss of reputation. This makes them somewhat different than

invitations from an editor of a journal. In effect, the invitation

says, "We offer you storage space for an article." Also, a person

may post an invitation for themselves during the negotiation stage

of review, if they feel confident they can support the position

claimed in their review message.

_ Cancellation

It is possible for an author to cancel an article, thereby releasing

the associated storage space. The article then goes off-line (i.e.,

"out of print") along with its reviews and the articles that were

dependent upon it for their place in storage. This would typically

occur during explicit negotiation after the author had seen the

article's reviews. It could, however, occur much later, when a new