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.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
LogiLogi-list mailing list
LogiLogi-list lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/logilogi-
list
|