I am disappointed by much of what I have recently read about journal writing. I want to provide different ideas. 1. The people I hang out with, small and large, write for journals because they have something to say. Sure, they'd like jobs, tenure, etc, but that is a secondary consideration. And the raises post-tenure are small enough that major publication is a bummer on a cost-benefit basis. We write because we want to. 2. As an inter-/trans- kind of guy, I depend on journal referees to keep out the crap. Of which there is a huge amount as anyone who referees knows. My problem is finding the time to actually read what has been well refereed. The last thing I want to do is to have poor papers pour at me. 3. This, btw, is my big beef at AoIR conferences -- not enough refereeing. It's not nice to waste people's time with poorly researched and poorly written papers. 4. I am involved with Wikipedia, and it works pretty well (altho unlikely Phoebe Ayers, I observe more vandalism and 3RR cases -- see current Wikipedia Signpost for Vandalism stats -- I guard the gates of Barbara Streisand, Anna Nicole Smith and Sandra Oh daily -- as well as the articles on Social Network stuff. But this would not be a good model for refereeing. Remember, that most comments in blogs, etc are junk. Who'd want to waste their time sifting through, when there is good research to be done -- and written up. Having said this, I am off on a trip to May 10, and may not get a chance to respond. And YMMV, Barry Wellman _____________________________________________________________________ Barry Wellman S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman for fun: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php _____________________________________________________________________
3. This, btw, is my big beef at AoIR conferences -- not enough refereeing. It's not nice to waste people's time with poorly researched and poorly written papers.
I'm so glad you said this Barry--I agree. It would be easy to fix: we just need to require full papers rather than abstracts, and actually have folks review them. Of course we still have issues to resolve based on the fact that people come from different home disciplines and have different expectations of what a conference paper is and what it counts for. (Does it 'count' for tenure? Can you expand it into a journal article, or does it count as already published?) Those are important to address. But eventually we will become people's home discipline, and I'd rather see the bar set higher for what a conference paper is supposed to be. YMMV, Amy
Amy S. Bruckman schrieb:
3. This, btw, is my big beef at AoIR conferences -- not enough refereeing. It's not nice to waste people's time with poorly researched and poorly written papers.
I'm so glad you said this Barry--I agree. It would be easy to fix: we just need to require full papers rather than abstracts, and actually have folks review them.
Of course we still have issues to resolve based on the fact that people come from different home disciplines and have different expectations of what a conference paper is and what it counts for. (Does it 'count' for tenure? Can you expand it into a journal article, or does it count as already published?) Those are important to address. But eventually we will become people's home discipline, and I'd rather see the bar set higher for what a conference paper is supposed to be.
given the condition that full papers are submitted and reviewed in detail, it would be necessary to edit proceedings that are distributed at the aoir conference (or online) because otherwise there would be no motivation for people to submit full papers. the current procedure, to upload the full papers to the conference website and to give password-access to conference attendents and to require each attendent to submit a full paper also doesn't seem very promising to me. peer-reviewing sometimes is like throwing dice because not only are there too many bad papers, but also too many bad reviewers. christian
YMMV,
Amy _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- -- _____________________________ Univ.Ass. Dr. Christian Fuchs Assistant Professor for Internet and Society ICT&S Center - Advanced Studies and Research in Information and Communication Technologies & Society http://www.icts.uni-salzburg.at University of Salzburg Sigmund Haffner Gasse 18 5020 Salzburg Austria christian.fuchs@sbg.ac.at Phone +43 662 8044 4823 Fax +43 662 6389 4800 Information-Society-Technology: http://fuchs.icts.sbg.ac.at http://www.icts.uni-salzburg.at/fuchs/ Managing Editor of tripleC - peer reviewed open access online journal for the foundations of information science: http://triplec.uti.at
On Apr 26, 2007, at 1:08 AM, Amy S. Bruckman wrote:
3. This, btw, is my big beef at AoIR conferences -- not enough refereeing. It's not nice to waste people's time with poorly researched and poorly written papers.
I'm so glad you said this Barry--I agree. It would be easy to fix: we just need to require full papers rather than abstracts, and actually have folks review them.
I've proposed this a few times, I think it could help resolve some of the issues. However, it will create at least one more problem in terms of academic labor.
Of course we still have issues to resolve based on the fact that people come from different home disciplines and have different expectations of what a conference paper is and what it counts for. (Does it 'count' for tenure?
Perhaps, but it is not a Computer Science conference, so most likely not. Granted, I don't think some of the conference spam type of conferences with full proceedings should count for tenure either. To the extend that going to a conferences and presenting a paper counts toward tenure in your field, then I'd suggest that it would.
Can you expand it into a journal article, or does it count as already published?)
nope, AoIR does not currently publish, archiving papers is opt-in and not publishing. Will it publish? I hope it will someday. If it were full paper-peer review then i suspect the proceedings could be published without much issue.
Those are important to address. But eventually we will become people's home discipline, and I'd rather see the bar set higher for what a conference paper is supposed to be.
I'd just like to see conference papers with multidisciplinary peer review. We would need many more reviewers though, which would be an issue.
YMMV,
Amy _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) Words are things; and a small drop of ink, falling like dew upon a thought, produces that which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think. --Byron
Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
... nope, AoIR does not currently publish, ...
Unless you count the Internet Research Annual, which presumably publishes the best of the papers from each conference -- or at least a representative sample thereof. -- Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Communication Studies Luther College, Decorah, Iowa USA http://academic.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain
that is published by a Steve's Publisher in collaboration, AoIR doesn't have any issn's or isbn's assigned which would indicate that it is a publisher. it might seem a technical detail, but publishing is different, perhaps only in my mind, than having a contract with a publisher. which btw expired didn't it? the last annual was the last one...? On Apr 26, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Mark D. Johns wrote:
Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
... nope, AoIR does not currently publish, ...
Unless you count the Internet Research Annual, which presumably publishes the best of the papers from each conference -- or at least a representative sample thereof. -- Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Communication Studies Luther College, Decorah, Iowa USA http://academic.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I've been meaning to add to this discussion of journals but haven't had time. However, this is a small piece of the overall thread that I can quickly respond to. Jeremy is correct that AoIR did not publish the research annual (but he's not correct insofar as it's Peter Lang Publishing that's the publisher and not "Steve's Publisher" :-)). It was, as usual with all things AoIR, volunteer work that made it happen, and it was primarily Mia Consalvo who volunteered. Without here there would not have been an annual, just as there would not have been one without the program chairs who served as editors, nor without the contributors. It's also correct that the last research annual will be the last one published by Peter Lang. Sales were abysmal, and while I don't have the figures in front of me, they were in the neighborhood of fewer than 100 sold of each. Sj On Apr 26, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
that is published by a Steve's Publisher in collaboration, AoIR doesn't have any issn's or isbn's assigned which would indicate that it is a publisher. it might seem a technical detail, but publishing is different, perhaps only in my mind, than having a contract with a publisher. which btw expired didn't it? the last annual was the last one...? On Apr 26, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Mark D. Johns wrote:
Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
... nope, AoIR does not currently publish, ...
Unless you count the Internet Research Annual, which presumably publishes the best of the papers from each conference -- or at least a representative sample thereof. -- Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Communication Studies Luther College, Decorah, Iowa USA http://academic.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http:// aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu)
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Peter Lang Publishing that's the publisher and not "Steve's Publisher" :-)).
:) ya, i was bein lazy cause I'm currently working on organizing issue 3 of Learning Inquiry with Jason in another window
It was, as usual with all things AoIR, volunteer work that made it happen, and it was primarily Mia Consalvo who volunteered. Without here there would not have been an annual, just as there would not have been one without the program chairs who served as editors, nor without the contributors.
Mia deserves much accolades for her work with AoIR. I know she has my appreciation and I suspect many others:)
Thanks Jeremy :). In response to the discussion about submitting abstracts versus papers, there are of course disciplines that do both well, but one of our biggest challenges is our inter-disciplinary nature. One of the reviewers this year made a great suggestion- that when submitting abstracts have the authors include, perhaps as a keyword, their disciplinary affiliation. And on the flipside, potential reviewers would also list their disciplinary affiliations so that we could try to match at least one reviewer from the discipline to the abstract. We also, unfortunately, must sometimes assign reviewers abstracts outside of their areas of expertise, or simply see the abstract go un-reviewed. The solution there is of course to have more reviewers-- which is a challenge from year to year. I'd be in favor of having full papers for future conferences, but I will agree with Ted and some others that I do go to conferences that review full papers only, and it is NOT a guarantee of quality. I'd stack AoIR's quality against any other conference, and I think we'd win many times. Mia -- Mia Consalvo, Associate Professor Director of Graduate Studies 213 RTV Building School of Telecommunications 9 South College Street Ohio University Athens, OH 45701 740.597.1521 On 4/26/07 9:43 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
It was, as usual with all things AoIR, volunteer work that made it happen, and it was primarily Mia Consalvo who volunteered. Without here there would not have been an annual, just as there would not have been one without the program chairs who served as editors, nor without the contributors.
Mia deserves much accolades for her work with AoIR. I know she has my appreciation and I suspect many others:)
I suspect that full-paper submission is a good low-pass filter, catching and eliminating those who are not as prepared to present. I would certainly agree that I have seen some excellent papers presented at the AIR conferences, and that's the reason I keep coming back. But I also sympathize with Barry and others: there have been some real dogs presented. I won't exclude some of my own presentations from the canine group. There is no reason a move toward full papers would need to be drastic. In future years, a call could be made for both full papers and abstracts, the former as part of a special track that would also be appealing to publishing arrangements with some of the journals who have been supporters of research by AIR attendees in the past. This would allow for the organization to "try out" full papers, without requiring an immediate ramping up of reviewers or process. Alex On 4/26/07, Mia Consalvo <consalvo@ohio.edu> wrote:
Thanks Jeremy :).
In response to the discussion about submitting abstracts versus papers, there are of course disciplines that do both well, but one of our biggest challenges is our inter-disciplinary nature. One of the reviewers this year made a great suggestion- that when submitting abstracts have the authors include, perhaps as a keyword, their disciplinary affiliation. And on the flipside, potential reviewers would also list their disciplinary affiliations so that we could try to match at least one reviewer from the discipline to the abstract.
We also, unfortunately, must sometimes assign reviewers abstracts outside of their areas of expertise, or simply see the abstract go un-reviewed. The solution there is of course to have more reviewers-- which is a challenge from year to year.
I'd be in favor of having full papers for future conferences, but I will agree with Ted and some others that I do go to conferences that review full papers only, and it is NOT a guarantee of quality. I'd stack AoIR's quality against any other conference, and I think we'd win many times.
Mia
-- Mia Consalvo, Associate Professor Director of Graduate Studies 213 RTV Building School of Telecommunications 9 South College Street Ohio University Athens, OH 45701
740.597.1521
-- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //
There is no reason a move toward full papers would need to be drastic. In future years, a call could be made for both full papers and abstracts, the former as part of a special track that would also be appealing to publishing arrangements with some of the journals who have been supporters of research by AIR attendees in the past. This would allow for the organization to "try out" full papers, without requiring an immediate ramping up of reviewers or process.
I think this is a good idea, and would be interested in seeing the organization move in this direction. Particularly because it is gradual and a no-harm-done sort of experiment, regardless of outcome.... Maybe a good starting point would be to ask some of those journal editors whether they'd be willing to sponsor topical special issues, and then fill those special issues with full papers from the conference? [Not sure whether you'd want the editors soliciting the authors, or the authors competing to get their papers into issues. I can see pro/con of both sides.] Great ideas, Alex! --e
Regarding abysmal sales of the AoIR Annuals . . . why hasn't every AoIR member insisted that their University Library purchase copies of the whole set (I have). And why haven't AoIR members purchased copies for family and friends (I have). Easier to get cited, too if they have the copy in hand. Cheers, Denise Denise N. Rall, PhD Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480 AUSTRALIA Tues: Room T2.17, +61 (0)2 6620 3577 Mobile 0438 233 344 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/rsm/staff/pages/drall/ Virtual member, Cybermetrics Group, University of Wolverhampton, UK http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
to address. But eventually we will become people's home discipline, and I'd rather see the bar set higher for what a conference paper is supposed to be.
I'd just like to see conference papers with multidisciplinary peer review. We would need many more reviewers though, which would be an issue.
There are papers that don't get submitted to AoIR as full papers for this very reason. Adding substantive peer review would certainly work to change that. I guess the end goal is important to consider, here.... --e
Amy Bruckman wrote:
But eventually we will become people's home discipline,
I'm curious how many others think/believe/expect this. Disciplines can be defined by their subject matter, methods, or perspectives (typically some combination), but AOIR is diverse in all three of these regards - and intentionally (perhaps even increasingly) so. Even if those fascinated with "inter-/trans-"/boundary-crossing focus their career attention within AOIR, and those of us with disciplinary inclinations depart, to what extent can unbounded diversity provide a foundation for a home anything, much less a home discipline? -eg
It is my understanding that post-tenure publication is a very steep slope to the negative. This alone could potentially falsify the fact/claim that jobs, tenure, etc are seconday to the desire to speak. Also if this desire is the primary motive then IMHO it would make no difference where it is published or what stature that publication may have. George Ritzer in "The McDonalization of Society" pp 70-74 presents some compelling arguments against Dr. Wellman's assertions. In it he qutoes Donald Kennedy, the former president of Stanford University, who also speakes to this link between publications and career. Absent more compelling (less anecdotal) information I cannot get past these fact/claims. On another note, I have found no Journal that was born full grown. At some point all of them have struggled for acceptance against the cultural forces that are implicit in this thread. It is true of any new scholarly endeavor. Is there room for another experiment? James Barry Wellman <wellman@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote: I am disappointed by much of what I have recently read about journal writing. I want to provide different ideas. 1. The people I hang out with, small and large, write for journals because they have something to say. Sure, they'd like jobs, tenure, etc, but that is a secondary consideration. And the raises post-tenure are small enough that major publication is a bummer on a cost-benefit basis. We write because we want to. --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
participants (12)
-
Alex Halavais -
Amy S. Bruckman -
Barry Wellman -
Christian Fuchs -
Denise N. Rall -
Ellis Godard -
elw＠stderr.org -
James Whyte -
Jeremy Hunsinger -
Mark D. Johns -
Mia Consalvo -
Steve Jones