How would the system work?

 

Any philosophy faculty and grad students may register for posting privileges (independent scholars would require special approval).

 

Registered users are immediately entitled to submit one two papers of their own.  After that, they must earn additional posting privileges by reviewing and commenting on others' papers.  We will want this part of the system to be set up to incentivize valuable feedback contributions, without being excessively burdensome.

 

For example, we may wish to distinguish gradations of feedback:

- Minor Comments

- Blog-length Commentary

- Full Reviews / Discussion notes.

 

Tentative Proposal: assign 'feedback points' based on grade of contribution (and possibly weighted by others' "meta-ratings" of the contribution). 

E.g.: 0 points default for minor comments (+1 possible from meta-ratings),

2 pts for commentary (+/- 2),

6 pts for reviews (+/- 4)

 

 

Users may then spend 10 of their points to submit another paper to the site.

 

[Discuss.]

 

(We might also want to give extra points for contributing feedback on papers that have not already been reviewed.)

 

Possible variation on immediate entitlement. One potential consideration is that it is not only important to incentivize valuable feedback; it is also important to build a good collection of diverse papers for review. Thus we probably should consider the merits of allowing registered users to submit up to two or three papers of their own at the beginning. [Agreed. -RC]

 

Requirements for registration. 1) Should people registering be required to submit (perhaps simplified) CVs?

2) What would be the process of special approval for independent scholars? (One possible reason for requiring the submission of a basic CV would be to help regularize registration across the board for faculty, students, and independents.)

 

See also discussion page for Ratings system.


Page Information

  • 1 week ago [history]
  • View page source
  • You're not logged in
  • Recent comments:
    Brandon Watson:A potential major issue is how the 'grades' of responses would be determined; but if it were something like the above, it would mostly sort itself out on its own: if each contributed paper had a comments thread (with character limits), and there were some sort of on-site forum for informal discussion -- a forum would be more flexible, but a weblog would allow more standardization -- then the only worry might be making sure the discussion papers, which are minor contributed drafts in their own right, were properly categorized.
    Brandon Watson:I'll be using comments for shorter, more speculative thoughts that I'm not yet comfortable with adding to the existing pages. In a sense, I think the 'rating grades' break down into something like this: 1) Short comments (perhaps like weblog comments threads) 2) Informal discussion (perhaps on a weblog or in a site forum) 3) Discussion papers (these are short contributed response papers) In addition, the contributed drafts themselves may (in part) comment on each other.
  • No tags yet learn more

Wiki Information

Recent PBwiki Blog Posts