Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
|Date Suggested Day=22
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
|Authors List=Jamie Shaw, Hakob Barseghyan,Jamie Shaw
|Resource=Shaw and Barseghyan (2019)
|Preamble=While it is implicit in the scientonomic workflow, that paper submissions are evaluated for [[Theory Pursuit|pursuitworthiness]] rather than [[Theory Acceptance|acceptability]], this is yet to be stated and accepted ''explicitly''. As seen in the case of the traditional workflow, when the goals of the peer review process are not clearly articulated, some reviewers review for pursuitworthiness, others review for acceptance, yet other review for both. As a result it is often unclear how the content of a published article should be understood - as accepted by the community or as merely pursued. Thus, to avoid confusion, it is important to state explicitly what the goals of the peer review process are in the scientonomic workflow.
|Modification=|To Accept=Goals of Peer Review - Pursuitworthiness (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019),
|Automatic=No
|Verdict=OpenAccepted|Date Assessed Year=2023|Date Assessed Month=February|Date Assessed Day=25
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
|Verdict Rationale=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).
 
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagramfile=Sciento-2019-0001_Voting_Results.png}}
|Superseded By=
}}

Navigation menu