Goals of Peer Review - Pursuitworthiness (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)
This is an answer to the question Workflow - Goals of Peer Review that states "The goal of peer reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability."
Goals of Peer Review - Pursuitworthiness was formulated by Hakob Barseghyan and Jamie Shaw in 2019.1 It is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question.
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||25 February 2023||The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.||Yes|
Suggestions To Accept
Here are all the modifications where the acceptance of this theory has been suggested:
|Modification||Community||Date Suggested||Summary||Verdict||Verdict Rationale||Date Assessed|
|Sciento-2019-0001||Scientonomy||22 December 2019||Accept that the goal of peer-reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability.||Accepted||The decision was made during the 2023 scientonomy workshop. The modification was summarized by Paul Patton as essentially a ratification of current scientonomic practice. Jamie Shaw raised some concerns about how we don’t have adequately defined norms that must be satisfied for pursuitworthiness, which may make this modification trivial. Discussion about how peer-reviewers’ notions of pursuitworthiness may veer close to acceptability ensued. Nevertheless, the modification passed with 83% of the votes to accept (10/12).||25 February 2023|
Goals of Peer Review - Pursuitworthiness (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019) is an attempt to theory the following question: Should peer reviewers evaluate a submitted paper for the pursuitworthiness or acceptability of the content of the paper?
See Workflow - Goals of Peer Review for more details.
In the scientonomic workflow, the goals of peer review are to assesses a paper for pursuitworthiness of the modifications suggested in the paper. Thus, peer reviewers should not evaluate submissions for acceptability, but only for pursuitworthiness.
No reasons are indicated for this theory.
If a reason supporting this theory is missing, please add it here.
Questions About This Theory
There are no higher-order questions concerning this theory.
If a question about this theory is missing, please add it here.
- ^ Shaw, Jamie and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2019) Problems and Prospects with the Scientonomic Workflow. Scientonomy 3, 1-14. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33509.