Datasets:
HDTenEightyP
/
UTZOO

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
7.33k
| | |
| V V
----------- R: Withdrawal
| Reconsider|-------------->
-----------
|
| A: Cancelation
|
V
Key
A = Author
M = Mediator Calc. = Calculate consensus
R = Referee
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2. Cycle of operation for a consensus journal
(A referee becomes an author only after a submitted article has been
published by the mediator [not shown in figure]).
Assuming that the article was not cancelled, the combined effects of
withdrawal by referees with most deviant judgments and
reconsideration by others would likely lead to consensus,
particularly if the requirements for consensus were successively
relaxed. This assumes that revision of judgments would be in the
direction of dominant view points, a common finding. The result
would be an invitation issued by the mediator to selected referees.
Subsequent submission of an articles by selected referees and their
publication by the mediator would complete the cycle of operation.
The invitation report can guide negotiation when a consensus can not
be identified. Individual invitation staging could proceed along
with a relaxation of requirements for consensus. For instance, if
the first round of reviews did not generate a consensus, referees
could issue invitations to others (Table 1). If the second round of
reviews did not generate a consensus, referees could issue self
invitations (these would be acceptances for those who had received
invitations), or perhaps, direct the invitations they had already
received to others. Failure on the third round would permit these
previously issued invitations to serve as a coordination mechanism.
That is, certain referees would have indicated a readiness to
respond and others would have rejected the option of authorship
unsupported by a consensus. Thus, duplication of effort could be
avoided by examining the ranking of persons in terms of the
invitations received and accepted, and responding accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Message Level and (Receiver):
Public Private
(Readers) (Mediator)
Stage of Process:
Publication Article
Refereeing Review(1)
Invitation Report
Reconsideration Review(2), Withdraw, Cancel,
Invite
Invitation Report
Reconsideration Review(3), Withdraw, Cancel,
Self invitation
Invitation Report
Submit Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Message level, receiver, and type, by stage of processing
(assumes no consensus reached during negotiation)
New articles are requested either by the mediator or by referees, if
an author and referees follow negotiations to completion. New
articles must be submitted before a deadline. At the deadline, the
new articles received are published. This makes them available to
the readership and completes the cycle of operation for a consensus
journal.
Thus in the simplest case, articles are read, reviews are
transmitted, invitations are issued, and new articles are submitted
in a timely manner. In the extended cycle, at least a single
reconsideration or negotiation stage occurs during which a target
article can be cancelled by its author and during which referees can
withdraw. A failure to achieve consensus leads to explicit
negotiation and options such as nonconsensus invitation. The
extended negotiation option makes the consensus journal more similar
to a conventional journal, because there is explicit negotiation
prior to the writing of an article.