Re: [xmca] Trying to stop the strands from unravelling

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

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!!
mike

On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 4:10 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> 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
> so.
>
> > On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:08 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> >> 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
> but
> >> not the other. I like to think of myself as primarily a researcher and
> only
> >> secondarily a kvetch, but my record says otherwise.
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca