Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0004

Provide your comments regarding the suggested modification here. At minimum you need to indicate whether you think the modification is acceptable, why "yes" or why "no". The key question here is not whether the modification is flawless - no modification ever is. The key question is whether the modification, if accepted, will provide an overall improvement to our communal knowledge.

Please follow the instructions in the guidelines for readers.

Sort by date Sort by score

Enable comment auto-refresher

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

Ameer Sarwar

46 months ago

Score 0

I am not sure what a "book prize" is. This sounds like a prize for writing a book, but that is not what is intended here. I recommend changing the name to something that more closely resembles what the prize is for. I am witholding judgment on this modification until further discussion.

Also, and this is a completely separate suggestion, it may be useful if everyone who has an account on the Encyclopedia received a monthly email that talked about the new comments made to the modifications, etc. I think that would encourage participation. (For example, I didn't know that people had commented on the modifications I had suggested!)

Finally, I am not sure why Karen Yan's suggestion was not included in the suggested modifications for this paper. I think her ideas, e.g., that scholars should be invited to comment, etc., (which may actually lead to further joint publications for the parties involved, per modification 2019-0002, thus providing more incentive and expanding the community) deserve serious discussion.

Permalink

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

Hakob Barseghyan

13 months ago

Score 0

At the 2023 Scientonomy Workshop, the authors of the modification introduced some clarifications before it was discussed and voted upon. Namely, Hakob Barseghyan withdrew his comment about concerns about funding the book prize, and Jamie Shaw clarified that the line about a “CV-worthy line” was specifically catered towards incentivizing early-career scholars. The authors also indicated that continual commentating could allow for several prizes in various categories to reward more participants. There were some concerns about setting the wrong precedent to incentivize commenting or keeping up the prize long term. Shaw responded by emphasizing that keeping the prize on the smaller scale would minimize potential “vicious competition” while still allowing outstanding contributors to be recognized. Deivide Garcia wondered whether students would desire a recognition of the university community and if a larger prize would be more advisable. Barseghyan reminded that the best essay awards eventually ceased to be awarded because of its high monetary value, so institutional support would be needed to ensure a larger prize. Ultimately, it was concluded that while everyone agreed a prize was necessary, it wasn’t clear or agreed upon what that prize should be: hence, this became an agenda item for the 2023 annual meeting. The modification did not receive enough votes to become accepted and remains open.

Permalink

You are not allowed to post comments.