[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Trying to stop the strands from unravelling
- To: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Trying to stop the strands from unravelling
- From: Wolff-Michael Roth <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:49:14 -0700
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <6788279B-5387-444D-A05A-B7C38596B614@uvic.ca> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
this is why I have been pushing online first, which would mean articles go online as soon as accepted and type-set. You can push the idea at AERA with Kathryn.
On 2010-04-24, at 5:34 PM, mike cole wrote:
X-actly right about the tradeoffs, Michael. If one both reads and
participates in MCA and in xmca, its as good as one kind of both worlds--
and add the discussions
of articles that give broad feedback to authors without a long wait.
Suggestions for how to do it better warmly welcomed, but anyone willing to
do a little more work!!
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi David and Mike,
> what is good about xmca also is bad about xmca, what is good about mca is
> also bad.
> I think that MCA serves a need that Mike wanted to address when he moved
> from the newsletter to a formal journal. People now get credit at their
> institutions, and this is good. Of course, we have to go through peer review
> . . . or companies might just pull the plug as Elsevier has done with
> Medical Hypotheses, which published unreviewed articles with the outcome
> that some were promoting extreme views on AIDS and other issues. Similarly,
> on xmca one can say things that does not hold up water in a paper, and this
> is what is good about MCA, that people can't just say anything but have to
> argue tightly. You can't just yack, which is what happens here at times.
> David and others (Andy in an upcoming commentary) that I personally do not
> agree with, and yet we publish it as a commentary.
> So, to contradict Mike a bit, there is a place in MCA to blow off:
> COMMENTARIES----David did so not too long ago----but we also distinguish
> those pieces from reviewed articles, precisely we want those who choose MCA
> as their outlet to get credit at their home institutions. And, we don't want
> MCA to be like xmca, because then we would only need one of the two not
> both. And xmca is archived, you can print it if you want.
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 4:10 PM, mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I agree with your characterization of xmca and mca, David. Working to make
> the second as much like the first as possible, and really liked the old
> Newsletter method, but lost out to the younger generation.... it were ever
>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:08 PM, David Kellogg <email@example.com
>>> I think that MCA and xmca are very different, and I am always sorry but
>>> not really surprised when told by reviewers that I can be a peer in one
>>> not the other. I like to think of myself as primarily a researcher and
>>> secondarily a kvetch, but my record says otherwise.
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list