Workflow - Closure Mechanism
How should verdicts on suggested modifications be achieved? If modifications are accepted as a result of a communal consensus, then what constitutes such a consensus?
To ensure the advancement of knowledge, an academic workflow requires some closure mechanism, i.e. some idea as to what counts as a communal consensus and when and how it is to be achieved. This is far from obvious, as different workflows often have different procedures for consensus formation. In some workflows, the closure happens with the publication of the paper, while in others it happens long after the initial publication, if at all. In the latter case, workflows can differ in their understanding of what counts as a consensus (e.g. unanimity, lack of explicit objection, majority opinion, etc.). "While views differ as to how closure should proceed, they agree that we need some way to close debates or discussions such that they do not extend indefinitely."1 Thus, it is important for the scientonomic workflow to have a proper closure mechanism in place to ensure that suggested modifications are evaluated and verdicts are reached communally in an inclusive and transparent fashion.
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan and Jamie Shaw in 2019. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. At the moment, the question has no accepted answer in Scientonomy.
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||22 December 2019||The publication of Shaw and Barseghyan (2019) is and indication of the acceptance of the question.||Yes|
|Closure Mechanism - Time Limit and Communal Vote (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)||The verdict on a suggested modification should be decided by a communal vote that will follow the discussion period.||2019|
|Closure Mechanism - Acceptance by Default (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)||A modification should be accepted by default if there are no objections within a 90-day period following its publication.||2019|
|Modification||Community||Date Suggested||Summary||Verdict||Verdict Rationale||Date Assessed|
|Sciento-2019-0007||Scientonomy||22 December 2019||Accept that the verdict on suggested modifications is to be decided by a communal vote that will follow the discussion period. Have a communal discussion and decide as to what percentage of votes it should take for a modification to be accepted - a simple majority (50% +1), or supermajority of three fifths (60%), two thirds (67%), or three quarters (75%). Also discuss to decide as to how long the discussion period and the voting period should be.||Open|
|Sciento-2019-0008||Scientonomy||22 December 2019||Accept that a countdown mechanism is to be introduced, where a modification is accepted by default if there are no objections within a 90-day period following its publication.||Open|
There is currently no accepted answer to this question.
This topic is a sub-topic of Scientonomic Workflow.
- 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.