Comments on: First Issue: Canadian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences is Live

By: Jeremy Jackson

Jeremy Jackson — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:23:30 +0000

Thank you for your thoughtful comments Quentin. We will be discussing this issue at our next editorial board meeting. So far, we have had a large number of congratulations for the concept but also a large number of questions relating to the finer details of our editorial policy. This shows me that we are doing something people find intriguing but we have much work to do in developing our concept. Please feel free to email me directly so that we can discuss this further. Thanks again for your interest Quentin. Jeremy

By: Tad McIlwraith

Tad McIlwraith — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:10:02 +0000

No, Quentin, I don’t think you’re over-thinking this at all. Your points are well-taken and very useful. I’ve passed them on to the larger editorial board. We have spent some time discussing the implications of what we have done – and are very committed to as much transparency as possible. Clearly labeling the article files adds to that transparency. Making the types of papers clear to authors and readers is important for our credibility.

Until now we’ve not had much response from users. So, thank you for the observations and suggestions for how we might confront them! -Tad

By: qmackie

qmackie — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:14 +0000

Just to be clear, I don’t think my “worst case scenario” Chickenlittling should hold the journal back. The upside is huge. But a little preventative medicine on making a clear taxonomy of the origin and review process of the paper which actually “stuck” to the paper would be good. I am thinking, make it clear as part of the URL, in the file name of the downloadable PDF, and embed it in the metadata of both.

e.g.

http://cjhss.org/_cjhss/pubData/v_1/i_1/20100507-1/20100507-1.pdf

becomes

http://cjhss.org/_cjhss/pubData/v_1/i_1/20100507-1/PEER-REVIEWED-PAPER-20100507-1.pdf

(In this instance if you could include the author name and title onto the PDF file when download, it is likely to “stick” as the file makes it way around the internet. Most people will rename 20100507-1.pdf right away.)

I know this could all be edited out by the end user, but in many cases it wouldn’t be. We can’t control what the world makes of anything we say anyway, but a bit of a proactive defensive jab might be worth thinking about.

Anyway, I am probably overthinking this!

By: Tad McIlwraith

Tad McIlwraith — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:29:27 +0000

Thank you for visiting Quentin and, more importantly, thank you for the feedback. We have discussed many of your questions and some still remain to have answers sorted out. We have thought about models like the PLoS model you mention – or the Current Anthropology model of paper, reviews, and a follow-up by the author.

The “Philip Rushton Problem” is worthy of further conversation. I have not considered the life of these papers once they leave the website and labeling clearly each paper by type would be an effective way of making it clear to readers they style of paper they are reading. And, authors are encouraged to track the comments on their papers and respond directly to them on the website as often as they like.

Thanks again for your interest. -Tad

By: qmackie

qmackie — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:10:33 +0000

Hi Tad,

This journal looks great. I see you are on the Editorial Board – congrats on getting this out the door, it must have been a ton of work.

The “crowd sourced” open review is an interesting model. Traditional peer review is anonymous of course, which has been one of its problems (and arguably a strength), but a problem in that there could be bitchiness, politics, and even idea theft behind that curtain. Sunlight being a good disinfectant, it’ll be interesting to see the process go public. I think some of the PLOS journals have the peer reviews published alongside the paper and is that something something this journal has thought of?

Anyway, in an ideal world the crowd-sourced model would work but lets face it, some papers might not get reviewed, or serious review, and yet there they would stand. How will the journal go about clearly marking the two kinds of papers – I am thinking it almost needs to be in the title or something for once the paper escapes from the journal website. If Philip Rushton submits a eugenics paper to Open Review, will t be confusing to keep clear that it is not in a Peer Reviewed journal?

I am cool with both models and we all know peer review is a mixed bag but just curious how to keep the apples away from the oranges.

Also, will the author be able to engage in a back-and-forth with the open reviewers?

It’s a grand experiment in any case and looking forward to seeing some traditional models get broken, and maybe get put back together.