[Sigmet-officers] Update on the paper contest

[Jonathan Levitt]

Cassidy thanks for your feedback; you wrote "I would also like to see components for the quality of the methods and the originality of the research."  I would be happy for the remit of the narrative comments to be widened to allow reviewers to comment on a wider range of items than the quality of writing and potential for publication.   For example the comments section could be revise to 'Potential for publication, quality of writing and other relevant items (e.g., the quality of the methods, originality and importance of the research)'.
 
Without doing a lot of extra work, it can be hard to grade effectively the originality of papers well outside your area of specialisation.  In addition, if we grade methods and originality, the question is why are these items singled out.  
 
Jonathan.

 
--- On Thu, 31/3/11, Cassidy Sugimoto <cassidysugimoto at gmail.com> wrote:

 

From: Cassidy Sugimoto <cassidysugimoto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigmet-officers] Update on the paper contest
To: 
Cc: "SIG MET" <sigmet-officers at asis.org>
Date: Thursday, 31 March, 2011, 5:20


I know we don't want too many evaluation criteria, but I would also like to see components for the quality of the methods and the originality of the research...(and maybe "importance" or research or some other word for assessing contribution or potential to advance knowledge...)  Just my two cents--feel free to disregard.


On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan Levitt <jonathan at levitt.net> wrote:






Dear all, 
  
Of the ten potential reviewers, four have accepted (Kevin Boyack, Katherine McCain, Ronald Roussueau and Mike Thelwall), three declined and three have not yet replied. 
  
I suggest that we finalise the reviewing criteria well before the deadline.  On the basis of previous discussions, I suggest in addition to the default criteria (Overall evaluation, -3 to 3; 
Reviewer confidence, 0 to 4) we have the following criteria: 
(1)      Potential for publication (1 to 5). 
(2)      Quality of the writing (1 to 5). 
(3)      Comments on potential for publication and quality of writing. 
  
As the reviewers prefer an absolute score, I suggest we go for it.  We don’t have anyone to normalise, but hopefully the results will not be too skewed by not normalising. 
  
I have two questions: 
(a)       How are the papers assigned to reviewers? 
(b)      Is there any way of making sure that   reviewers receive their papers ASAP. 
  
Judit wrote “I am not sure, but I think that there is a way to send the scores to the authors - Chaoqun can probably test this.”   Chaoqun could you please find out and also how many papers have already been submitted. 
  
Best regards, 
Jonathan. 
 
_______________________________________________
Sigmet-officers mailing list
Sigmet-officers at mail.asis.org
http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmet-officers




-- 
Cassidy R. Sugimoto, PhD 
Assistant Professor 
School of Library and Information Science 
Indiana University Bloomington 
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~sugimoto 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
Sigmet-officers mailing list
Sigmet-officers at mail.asis.org
http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmet-officers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmet-officers/attachments/20110331/46234e09/attachment.html