Since the VIRT3C conference in Hull earlier this spring, I am involved with an exciting group of people in the launch of a new scholarly online journal focused on collaboration and conflict in relation to commons-based production. I am a member of the scientific committee of this journal, for which a call for submissions is out now.
Critical Studies in Peer Production (CSPP) seeks high-quality contributions from researchers and practitioners of peer production. We understand peer production as a mode of commons-based and oriented production in which participation is voluntary and predicated on the self-selection of tasks. Notable examples are the collaborative development of Free Software projects and of the Wikipedia online encyclopedia. Through the analysis of the forms, operations, and contradictions of peer producing communities in contemporary capitalist society, the journal aims to open up new perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: the political economy of peer production; peer production and expertise; critical theory and peer production; peer production and exchange; peer production and social movements; peer production as an alternative to capitalism; peer production and capitalist cooptation; governance in peer projects; peer production and ethics; the peer production of hardware; peer production and feminism; peer production, industry and ecology.
All contributions will be peer reviewed. Contributors are invited to follow the Harvard citation style and to submit papers using free software such as Open Office. Once papers have been accepted, it is the author’s responsibility to format them in accordance with our specifications. The journal welcomes submissions based on interdisciplinary approaches including information and computer sciences, law, economics, geography, history, communications, and sociology.
Our approach to peer reviewing is informed by Whitworth and Friedman’s (2009, part 1; part 2) criticism of current academic publishing as a form of competitive economics in which “scarcity reflects demand, so high journal rejection rates become quality indicators”. This self-reinforcing system where journals that reject more attract more results in a situation where “avoiding faults becomes more important than new ideas. Wrongly accepting a paper with a fault gives reputation consequences, while wrongly rejecting a useful paper leaves no evidence”. Whitworth and Friedman propose an alternative evaluation system:
1. higher rating discrimination: a many-point scale, not just accept-reject
2. more submissions to be rated: rate all
3. more people to rate: community involvement
4. different ways of rating: formal review vs. informal use ratings.
Our process is also informed by Toni Prug’s ideas about community reviewing: all submission proposals must be made on our open email list. Prospective authors will then be told by the peer review community whether their proposal is appropriate for the journal and if any additional key elements are missing. Once authors have completed a full submission, they submit it to the editor who will assign it to three reviewers. Reviewers are encouraged to communicate with one another. Reviewers will provide any necessary recommendations for improvement.
