[melbourne-pug] Melbourne Python Users' Letters

[Maurice Ling]

>> Yes, a group review or mail-list review (as I understood it) will be 
>> beneficial for learning. But I am also concerned about time needed 
>> for a fruitful debate in this list. If we are going down this path, 
>> can I suggest that the Editor makes the final remarks in 7 calendar 
>> days from 1st post to this list? If anyone had missed out on the 
>> reviewing but strongly feels about the finalized article, please 
>> submit another article.
>>   
>
> That sounds ideal, but will work only if people are happy to do their 
> review within that 1-week time frame. If people participate, then that 
> method seems excellent to me.

I think this is a safe assumption/bet that we have to make.
As a safeguard, we can have an Editor-in-Chief and at least 1 Associate 
Editor(s).
In event whereby there is dead silence, it is then up to the 
Editor-in-Chief to review the paper himself (which he has to do or at 
least read anyway or assign to an AE to do the review.
In any case, the EIC is the dictator of the publication, he/she can veto 
AEs' and reviewers' decisions and comments. 

> I think this will require more than just the three of us, but if we 
> put in place an enticing opportunity, others may come. I have some 
> links to the Melbourne Uni Computer Student's Association, but I don't 
> know if this is quite their thing.

We can put it to Greg Lovell (President, MUCSA). I think it will be 
fantastic if they are interested to assist in the review (a good thing 
to write in resume). I presume you (Tennessee) will be the EIC, hence 
the publication decisions lie with you.

>
> Can anyone offer any suggestions for whether I should offer up some 
> kind of webpage, proof-of-concept, or summary in the short term?
>
> I'd be interested in hearing more about what is required for academic 
> peer review. Is there a document I can read outlining the 
> requirements? If so, then we could prepare a call for papers.


Few things about reviewing process have to be set in stone:
1. Open or close review. (will the paper authors know who reviewed the 
papers)
2. Will EIC do preliminary screening of the papers before putting it 
through peer review (ie, EIC can reject a submission outright, but does 
he want to do that)?
3. How many reviews before EIC makes the decision?
4. What happens is reviewers disagree?
5. Who makes final call?
6. How quickly to make first decision?
7. What happens if authors are unhappy about decision?

Other than that, we need the following:
1. Scope of publication
2. Frequency of publication
3. ISSN
4. what kinds of articles do we expect (ie. instructions to authors)? 
http://www.biomedcentral.com/independent/develop/articletypes

Cheers
Maurice

>
>
> My inclination would be to keep as much as possible out of circulation 
> in order to make the final product something exciting for people to 
> get their hands on. I would think that a reasonably attractive PDF 
> publication makes sense. Perhaps if I prepare/design a front page for 
> the issue, put it on a website as an image, and prepare some 
> information and a call for articles? Could anyone contribute 
> suggestions for what I might do in this vein?
>
> Cheers,
> -T
>


-- 
Maurice Han Tong LING, BSc(Hons)(Biochem), AdvDipComp, CPT, SSN, FIFA, 
MASBMB, MAMBIS, MACM
Doctor of Philosophy (Science) Candidate, The University of Melbourne
mobile: +61 4 22781753, +65 96669233
mailing address: Department of Zoology, The University of Melbourne
		 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
resume: http://maurice.vodien.com/maurice_resume.pdf
www: http://www.geocities.com/beldin79/