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.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.