My suggestion is not to provide a forum for opinion, but for proven facts. This would be in addition to the existing space at Democracy Chronicles; it would not supplant it. As to Ossipoff's suggestion that this material is already easy to publish in existing academic journals: I would suggest that the fact that the general knowledge on this list of systems, criteria, and compliances is far beyond the published literature *prima facie* refutes that. In fact, I'd turn Ossipoff's own logic back at him: if you're not interested in publishing in a peer-reviewed forum, then you have many non-peer-reviewed fora available, and this proposal has nothing to do with you.
Jameson 2012/9/28 Michael Ossipoff <email9648...@gmail.com> > To: Jameson and all who received his message: > > Whose head-up-the-a** idea was that? > > Certainly not. > > Who decides who your "peers" are? Who chooses them? > > At Democracy Chronicles, there is free and open discussion. If you > don't agree with something said in an article, then there is a > comments space available, in which you can express your disagreement > and tell your reasons for disagreeing. ...and the author of the > article always has the opportunity to reply to your comments. > > The readers can decide which argument is more convincing. > > That's called "free and open discussion". > > What Jameson proposes is something quite different. Among some small > group of people, and one of them, unilaterally, can block the > readership's access to an article. > > There is already a system of such journals--the academic and > professional journals. I invite Jameson to participate in those > journals by submitting papers to them. > > Several of us have used the Democracy Chronicles comment space to > express disagreement with articles there. > > Richard Fobes posted in the comment space to exprress his disagreement > with my article about ICT and the ICT poll at Democracy Chronicles. > But maybe Richard doesn't like a forum in which both sides can be > heard in free and open discussion. > > I, too, have used the Democracy Chronicles comment space to disagree > with an article there. > > Jameson, if you disagree with one or more of my articles, then I > invite you to express your disagreement in the comments space. > > Mike Ossipoff > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > One subdomain of voting methods in which the peer-reviewed academic > > literature is decidedly behind the amateur enthusiast community (that's > us) > > is in its coverage of different methods, criteria, and compliances. This > lag > > is unfortunate for several reasons. For one thing, it affects whether > known > > facts can be covered on wikipedia. For another, though some academics > > clearly are aware of the amateur knowledge, insofar as others aren't, it > > leads to needless misunderstandings and/or duplication of effort. > > > > I believe we can fix this by creating a peer reviewed open-access journal > > which combines the strengths of the academic and enthusiast communities. > The > > purview of such a journal should be strictly limited to what is > > mathematically expressed and/or provable, so that sufficiently meticulous > > amateurs can be considered as qualified peer reviewers (when accompanied > by > > at least one experienced reviewer). > > > > This would take significant work to start and sustain. I'm volunteering > to > > do up to around half the work, but in practice that means I need at least > > two or three others to step forward as volunteers before we can seriously > > get started. Here's what I think we need to do: > > > > Managing editors > > > > These would be the people who would be ultimately responsible for > > everything. However, their role qua¹ managing editors would be more to > > shepherd things along; they may or may not also take the role of > reviewers, > > authors, etc. I think a group of 3-5 managing editors would be > sufficient to > > get things done without burnout. Among the managing editors would need > to be > > at least one with a relevant postgraduate degree (for instance > mathematics, > > statistics, economics, or political science). > > > > Site > > > > I think this would work best if it were a sub-branch of some credible > > existing site. That way, any existing credibility would be inherited. My > > first suggestion would be Adrian Tawfik's "Democracy Chronicles". I'd > also > > be happy to discuss it if any existing organizations (hint, hint) wanted > to > > lend their name and/or site. > > > > Hosting, software, etc. > > > > I suggest that the journal should be run MediaWiki software, the same > > software Wikipedia runs on. However, all "main space" articles should be > > protected from changes by all but a limited group of editors. This would > > allow freewheeling discussion on "talk" pages, but keep actual > "published" > > content in a stable, citeable form. > > > > Purview > > > > I think that this should focus on only four kinds of articles: system > > definitions (or equivalent re-formulations to help with proofs); criteria > > definitions; inter-criteria implications and equivalencies; and > > system-criteria (non)compliance proofs/counterexamples. Initially, only > > single-winner systems and criteria would be considered, although that > could > > change later. Systems and criteria would not be considered "published" > > without a certain level of "coverage" in terms of (non)compliance proofs. > > Thus, each individual "article" would frequently (though not always) be > > under a page in length. This short length and limited purview would > > establish an important differentiator between this effort and existing > > journals. > > > > Peer reviewers > > > > We'd need to have a broad, balanced group of peer reviewers. Reviewers > would > > NOT be required to have any specific degrees, but WOULD be required to > > demonstrate a clear knowledge of the norms of mathematical proof. I'd > think > > that 12-20 reviewers is a reasonable goal. I would expect that around > 2/3 of > > these reviewers would be capable "amateurs"; I hope we can get > participation > > from enough professional academics to constitute at least 1/3 of the > > reviewers. (I already have several ideas of whom I'd ask, though I'd also > > expect the other managing editors to help with this.) > > > > Peer review and other article life-cycle issues > > > > There would be a clear naming scheme to distinguish the various article > > types. Articles would initially be developed in the main namespace in > > unlocked form. This would allow any wiki user to help or comment. > > (Obviously, spammers and other troublemakers would need to be banned.) > > > > When an article was considered ready for peer review, its main author > would > > tag it as such, and it would be protected from further editing (though > the > > associated talk page would still be open for comments). > > > > Peer reviewers would have a chance to volunteer using one-shot > pseudonymous > > accounts (for which the identities would be secretly verified by any > > managing editor). Thus, authors would NOT be anonymous, but reviewers > WOULD. > > Reviewers would be encouraged to volunteer if they have any serious > negative > > concerns on an article, even if they do not wish to fully review all > aspects > > of that article. > > > > Each article would need at least 3 reviewers, at least 1 of whom must > have > > prior experience with the peer review system at this or any other > journal. > > If that requirement isn't met by volunteers, the managing editor would > > attempt to assign reviewers until it was. > > > > A review would consist of any number of suggestions, along with a > > determination of "acceptable as is", "acceptable with minor revisions", > > "potentially acceptable with major revisions", or "unacceptable". > Because of > > the sharply limited scope of each individual article, it is expected that > > "acceptable as is" would not be as negligibly rare as it is in most peer > > review. Reviewers who gave one of the top two determinations would be > > expected to have carefully reviewed the entire article; those who didn't, > > wouldn't. > > > > Once an article had all its reviews, its author would be given > permission to > > revise if necessary. When they tag it as "revisions done", those > permissions > > would be revoked, and reviewers would have a chance to raise (or lower) > > their determination. This process could iterate if necessary. > > > > In order to be considered "published", an article would need to be > > unanimously graded "acceptable". At that point, it would be permanently > > locked, though the talk page would remain open. > > > > .... > > > > Supposing we have 20 "core" systems and 20 "core" criteria which are to > be > > (dis)proven for each of the "core" systems. That's a substantial total: > 400 > > proofs. However, perhaps half of those will already exist in the > published > > literature, and perhaps half of the remainder will be utterly trivial > (such > > as well-known counterexamples). That leaves about 100 compliances that > would > > need careful review. With 15 reviewers, that's about 20 "core" > compliances > > each for review. Including non-"core" systems and criteria, I'd expect > that > > to increase to around 30. If the average reviewer handled 1 a month > (plus 1 > > of the "trivial" cases), that workload would take around 3 years to burn > > through, with each month's "issue" containing around 5 serious and 5 > trivial > > compliances. I think that that's roughly doable, if we put our minds to > it. > > > > Also, note that once we got the ball rolling and showed we were doing a > good > > job, we could attempt to get an existing professional society to "adopt" > the > > journal. If this were successful it would massively increase our > credibility > > and ability to attract new peer reviewers and authors. > > > > .... > > > > The above gives a basic idea of what it would take. Obviously, there's a > lot > > of minor and not-so-minor details still to work out. But I hope that this > > message is enough to get the ball rolling. > > > > So: please respond. Any comments, suggestions, or questions? Do you think > > you could be a managing editor or peer-reviewer? Is there someone else > you > > think should be in on this conversation? > > > > Jameson > > > > ¹ "qua" in this case means approximately "as, per se" > > > > ---- > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list > info > > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info