|
List Info Thread: Re: Happy News!
[1]
|
||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||
Re: Happy News! |
|
List Info Thread: Re: Happy News!
[1]
|
||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||
logilogi.org> wrote:
> The comments of the reviewers were as follows...:
>
> --- Reviewer 3
>
> Content
> 8
> (10%) Significance
> 8
> (10%) Originality
> 8
> (10%) Relevance
> 8
> (10%) Presentation
> 8
> (10%) Recommendation
> 9
> (50%) Total points (out of 100)
> 85
>
> Contribution of the submission:
>
> This contribution describes an application of IT to
the facilitation
> of academic discussion, specifically in the field of
philosophy, but
> seemingly applicable in other related fields. The case
for the tool's
> overcoming the limitations of other fora is well made
>
> Comments for the authors:
>
> The English expression here isn't perfect, although
it's good. There
> is the odd jar, such as the widely split infinite
"hopes to -- . . .--
> allow" on page one. The reference to short texts
being no more than "a
> few pages" gave me a jolt too: what's a page, in
this context? Since
> we can get HTTP content on our tiny cell-phone screens
(say, a couple
> of hundred thousand pixels) and on huge plasma screens
(many millions
> of pixels) the notion of a 'page' is puzzling and
precisely an example
> of the 'horseless carriage' principle the description
goes on to
> outline.
>
> The idea of giving people voting power as peer
reviewers according to
> how well their own material is reviewed is intriguing
and the
> practical consequences could have been explored more
fully. For
> example, what's to stop a team of self-congratulators
mutually
> approving one another's work to bump up their ratings?
(We know this
> happens in citation-index approval ratings.)
>
> The last part of this description, the link to Lyotard
and Derrida's
> ideas, was, for me, the weakest part of it. Indeed, it
could even be
> said to be gratuitous, since the meta-narratives that
these
> philosophers claimed are no longer believable
(Marxism, Feminism, and
> so on) are not really relevant to the transformations
of textuality
> that e-text and the web medium perform. (Or at least,
if you want to
> convince a sceptic like me that they are--that the web
is inherently
> post-modern in the politico-philosophical sense--then
you need to say
> quite a bit more to be convincing.)
>
> --- Reviewer 2
>
> Content
> 6
> (10%) Significance
> 8
> (10%) Originality
> 6
> (10%) Relevance
> 8
> (10%) Presentation
> 6
> (10%) Recommendation
> 8
> (50%) Total points (out of 100)
> 74
>
> Contribution of the submission:
>
> The authors outline the form of a textbase which will
accept brief
> commentaries on philosophical issues while
assimilating outside
> criticism of these. The work is meant to bridge the
uncomfortable gap
> between inefficient web forums and overly rigid and
formalized
> academic publication.
>
> Comments for the authors:
>
> This is a highly speculative project and it is
difficult to offer
> prediction as to its results or acceptance among
academics. What the
> reviewer hopes for here is ample and clear coding
examples, and
> examples of the possible results such a platform might
produce. These
> will enlighten readers as to the wider possibilities
of the project.
>
> The authors' attempt to place their project within the
history of
> language, philosophical communication, critical
theory, etc. is
> strained and unclear. It is not necessary for their
project to try to
> produce a chronology of where hypertextual
communication fits in the
> history of the Western episteme. This is a separate
topic and an
> unnecessary one for this purpose. It is more of a
footnote than part
> of the paper.
>
> --- Reviewer 1
>
> Content
> 6
> (10%) Significance
> 8
> (10%) Originality
> 6
> (10%) Relevance
> 10
> (10%) Presentation
> 10
> (10%) Recommendation
> 8
> (50%) Total points (out of 100)
> 80
>
> Comments for the authors:
>
> A very interesting project, highly relevant,
important, intriguing.
> There will be a good discussion. I hope there is room
for it at the
> conference.
>
> Criticisms:
>
> *) Not enough specific indication of actual
functionality to assess
> the uniqueness of the contribution, or even know
exactly what it is.
>
> *) Theoretical discussion not well-connected with the
actual
> objectives and strategies of the project.
>
> *) Ignores the amount of relevant work on scholarly
communication and
> hypertext in general. Should be contextualized within
this literature.
> And other related current behaviors, such as wikis,
blogs, etc.
>
> *) [[And more specifically it might even, I'm not
sure, underestimate
> a bit work specifically on philosophy and
computer-supported
> communication; ranging, I think, from article
repositories (I mention
> that as a contrast) to structured
argumentation/annotation ... at
> least I have the impression that there is relevant
work along these
> lines. Maybe not.]]
>
> *) A possible interesting question: can logic-chopping
analytic
> foundationalist absolutists use such a tool quite
happily, even though
> they detest Lyotard, Latour, Derrida, et al.? Would
they have other
> explanations for why it works for them?
>
> A very interesting project, highly relevant,
important, intriguing.
> There will be a good discussion. I hope there is room
for it at the
> conference.
>
> ---
>
> I think we can do something with this... We have until
the 25th of
> March to make small changes to our abstract... But
more in general
> I know a bit more about what to read / explore next
now...
>
>
>
> Wybo 
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
>