Posted by
Nick Thompson on
Jan 30, 2009; 5:15am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Homeostasis-by-Peer-Review-tp2228018p2243334.html
Glen,
You raise an interesting information theoretical point. Note that your
decision to (3) is not independent of your decision to (1) or (2). Some
redundancy here.
I am sure there are cases where you start to (3) and then decide that you
have to (1) after all. Or vice versa.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (
[hidden email])
> [Original Message]
> From: glen e. p. ropella <
[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
[hidden email]>
> Date: 1/29/2009 2:12:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Homeostasis by Peer Review
>
> Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 29/01/09 12:37 PM:
> > [...] it all
> > boils down to a one-bit decision: either you are going to read the
sucker
> > or you arent.
>
> Not that I'm argumentative or anything; but it's not just binary. I
> have at least 3 modes of reading: 1) read and integrate, 2) sloppy
> reading, and 3) skim. I do (1) when I want/expect to use the content
> for some task. I do (2) when I merely need to carry some context for
> understanding or communicating with others. And I do (3) when I want to
> determine whether I need to do (1) or (2), or when I just want an entry
> into some topic.
>
> So, the decision is, at least, quaternary.
>
> And much of which type of reading I do depends on the character of the
> publication pathway. And this is one of the reasons I hate the way /.
> and digg work. For whatever reason, I tend to get the most benefit out
> of obscure articles ... perhaps similarly, I seem to get the most
> enjoyment out of obscure music. Homogeny seems to be the enemy.
>
> > If one knows who the reviewers are ... knows their tastes, ete, perhaps
> > each consumer could rate reviewers and the program could give a stars by
> > reviewer-weighting customized for each consumer. Software could be
> > provided to do this. Very close to what Amazon provides right now,
except
> > that each reader could accumulate his own personal judgments of
reviewers,
> > rather than relying on swarm evaluation.
>
> This is a close approximation to what I'd like, except why approximate
> if you can shoot for the ultimate? If we were to develop a complicated
> projection from many to one dimensions, we may find that as difficult as
> implementing the multi-dimensional measure right off the bat. I suppose
> there would be marketing reasons... a competent funder might demand we
> start accumulating users immediately via a reducing projection and build
> out the multi-dimensional rating interface over time.
>
> > I forgot to say: Let's say the journal has an editorial board that
rates
> > and comments on articles as they are submitted. Let;s say we start a
> > journal called THE FRIAM JOURNAL OF APPLIED COMPLEXITY. Every article
is
> > sent out to five reviewers. So now we have a possiblity of 25 stars,
say.
> > Now, the editor passes along the ratings and suggestions of the readers
> > and the author now can make choice. He can carry on publication with a
low
> > rating, or he can revise and resubmit to get a better rating.
>
> This would be a nice evolution of the system we currently have. If I
> were the editor of an extant journal, I might find it attractive. But
> if I were to start an entirely new publication intent on revolutionizing
> peer-review, I would be more inclined to adopt a multi-dimensional
> rating system not based solely on number of stars. Of course, there are
> all sorts of compromises. Perhaps the stars are colored according to
> the domain expertise of the reviewer. Or perhaps we have multiple
> symbols for types of rating (innovation vs. clear communication vs.
> scientific impact etc.).
>
> > this led to another thought. A group such as this one wouldnt need
even to
> > start its own journal. It could just start a rating service of some
other
> > publication. We could, for instance, start by rating JASSS and putting
the
> > ratings up on the web. The trouble is we wouldnt be rating or seeing
the
> > articles that JASSS had rejected. I suppose we could ask JASSS to send
us
> > all their rejected articles!
>
> Actually, I'd like to see something like this for hubs like pubmed or
> repositories like citeseer or the acm's digital library. I wouldn't
> want it to be publication-specific, though I might want it to be
> domain-specific.
>
> > I am probably too lazy to do anything like this, but I really like
thinking
> > about it.
>
> [grin] Oh ... uh ... what? ... you were talking about actually _doing_
> something?!? Umm ... ok ... perhaps I'm in the wrong place... [patting
> pockets, grabbing jacket, retreating from the room] ;-)
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095,
http://agent-based-modeling.com>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org