[okfn-discuss] Open Participatory Research

[Rufus Pollock]

On 17/07/08 18:09, Sören Auer wrote:
> Rufus Pollock wrote:
>> This sounds like a great initiative. Looking at the wiki I was 
>> particularly struck by your mention of 'Open Peer Review'. This is 
>> something I've recently been thinking about quite a bit in the context 
>> of an economics paper I'm writing with an academic colleague on the 
>> subject of efficient dissemination of scholarly information. This is 
>> still at an early stage  but the basic ideas in it are set out in the 
>> introduction a portion of which I include below (for those who prefer 
>> things with a url I've just posted online at [1])
> 
> I completely agree, the possibilities of modern technology (such as the 
> Web, social networks, semantic technologies) are by far not yet 
> exhausted in the scientific world. A crucial aspect of peer-review and 
> filtering is also the reward dimension. Researchers whose work pass a 

Yes this is actually dicussed in the full paper where we explicitly 
mention that: "a second aspect of filtering is `Quality Signalling' for 
the purpose of resource allocation (jobs, grants etc)". I have to say 
that I think that this quality evaluation aspect can be derived at 
almost no cost once you have a decent filtering system in place and 
therefore, while in some sense a separate goal, can be seen as in some 
sense derivative from plain filtering.

> thorough review process and are accepted at a journal or conference with 
> much filtering (aka low acceptance rate) are rewarded with a prestigious 
> publication, which beautifies the CV and the track record. An open peer 
> review would have to provide a similar reward mechanism.

Sure though I would emphasize that one needs to distinguish reward from 
evaluation. Filtering will automatically result in simple ways to do 
evaluation (as just discussed). How that evaluation is transformed into 
a reward is a distinct, though obviously related, issue.

> Within our ParticipatoryResearch concept there will still be heavy 
> filtering, since grant money is limited as opposed to shelf space on the 

Again I would distinguish filtering/ranking from the decision of which 
from that set one chooses to fund. The same filtering/ranking algorithm 
can be used whether one decides to fund 2 or 20 proposals.

> Web. BTW: Looks like first discussions are currently starting within the 
> EU how FP8 will be tailored - I sent out information and pointers to 
> <http://wiki.cofundos.org> to some people there, but the matter will be 
> urged a little more if we could get some more support statements at:
> 
> <http://wiki.cofundos.org/Supporters>

I've signed.

> I would be very thankful if you would add yourself or invite your 
> friends and colleagues to do so too.

Am doing.

Regards,

Rufus

PS: some grammatical improvements you could make to 
http://wiki.cofundos.org/Concept

can not -> cannot

Project is running: involved investigators report publicly (e.g. Weblog) 
about the proceeding, enables stakeholders to influence the projects 
e.g. on changed requirements or promising alternative approaches appear

->

Project in progress: investigators report publicly (e.g. via a weblog) 
on progress. This enable stakeholders to be continuously involved, e.g. 
by suggesting changes in requirements or pointing out promising 
alternatives avenues for investigation that may appear