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

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

For online first to work, more xmca people have to subscribe. Sure would be
nice to get possiblity of online only version for less money. Also seems we
should routinely distribute editorials to xmca members and encourage more
people to write editorials!
mike

On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:

> Mike,
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
>
> 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!!
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca