Hi Tomasz,
this is what actually happend. Please refer to
: In order to achieve the greatest possible neutrality, the submissions
will
: be evaluated online using a *double-blind peer-review process*. This
: means that two evaluators will review the submission without knowing
: the name of its author. *If there are strong divergences among the two
: evaluations, at least one other review will be made.*
Kind regards,
Sebastian
Am 04.02.2016 um 11:31 schrieb Tomasz Ganicz:
Also - normally in Academia - if there are two
strongly opposite
reviews (one very positive, one very negative) a typical procedure is
to send the submission to the third one.
2016-02-04 10:54 GMT+01:00 Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com
<mailto:polimerek@gmail.com>>:
Well I think that double blind peer review hardly make sense here,
from the reviewer POV, as we are in fact small community and it
is easy to guess who was a submiter in most cases. For example -
if there is a submission about project X in country Y, which was
funded by WMF grant - it is very easy to find out who was grantee
and it is rather obvious that that person is a submitter :-)
Also judging from the several reviewers comments which I saw
already - they did not follow the very vague criteria which was
posted here:
https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Critical_issues_presentations#Eval…
Normally - at least in Academia - reviewers are forced directly
(by the review form) to address their opinion in relation to the
criteria. The criteria were:
"
1. problems and possible solutions in a specific field
2. proposals for others to replicate
3. issues (positive or negative) which have emerged from projects
4. issues you want to raise which you feel have not been
discussed yet
5. issues which are at the centre of an online debate that you
would like to address offline
"
1-4 are IMHO relatively easy to evaluate - I would expect from the
reviews to answer yes or no to them. 5 is a bit tricky as it
depends strongly of what the reviewer think is "at the centre" -
but I would expect that they at least explain in few words here
what they think is "at the centre" or not :-)
2016-02-04 0:22 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl
<mailto:darekj@alk.edu.pl>>:
hi,
I have some comments as a person from Academia (and not
involved in Wikimania process in any way):
1. Short reviews are definitely not helping in addressing the
frustration of rejection, yet are quite common in academic
peer reviewing, especially for conferences.
2. Double blind peer review (not knowing who is reviewed, and
not knowing who reviews) is a standard in Academia, although
some perceive it as contributing to lack of responsibility
(especially true in competitive journal submissions).
3. Two reviewers per submission is absolutely on par with the
conference standards I'm used to. Sometimes there are three,
but two is absolutely acceptable (although a third opinion
should be used if the two disagree too much).
4. It could be useful to sensitize the reviewers that the main
purpose of the review is to help the author to do better next
time.
5. All this is volunteer work. We should be, generally,
grateful to reviewers (but in the same time grateful to the
contributors, too).
best,
dj
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Maarten Dammers
<maarten(a)mdammers.nl <mailto:maarten@mdammers.nl>> wrote:
What kind of ridiculous process is this? This is all I got:
===============
----------------------- REVIEW 1 ---------------------
PAPER: 194
TITLE: GLAM+Wikidata
AUTHORS: Sandra Fauconnier and Maarten Dammers
OVERALL EVALUATION: 8 (Very good)
----------- REVIEW -----------
8
----------------------- REVIEW 2 ---------------------
PAPER: 194
TITLE: GLAM+Wikidata
AUTHORS: Sandra Fauconnier and Maarten Dammers
OVERALL EVALUATION: 6 (Rather interesting)
----------- REVIEW -----------
6
==============
So only two people reviewed this? Who are these people? Why is this secret?
Last year I had 5 people reviewing my submission [1].
Maarten
[1]
https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submission_review/5
Op 3-2-2016 om 23:15 schreef Andy Mabbett:
I've just received feedback on one of my pitches saying,
in part:
"Bad boy Andy! This is supposed to be an anonymous review
process, so starting your abstract with your own name, is
not entirely fair."
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
--
__________________________
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i grupy badawczej NeRDS
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://n <http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl/>wrds.kozminski.edu.pl
<http://wrds.kozminski.edu.pl>
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common
Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford
University Press) mojego
autorstwa
http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje
Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific
Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The
Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l