From info at edu-factory.org  Wed Apr 28 19:36:15 2010
From: info at edu-factory.org (info at edu-factory.org)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:36:15 +0200
Subject: <editorial board> next issue
Message-ID: <L1LKWF$FAD2311A4B96689DE07B791C62CAF08B@aruba.it>



Dear
all,

?

As you
know, the zero issue of the edu-factory journal was published online at the
beginning of March. We think it's an important achievement: thanks to all the
editorial board for the debate and the collaboration in this project. We would
now like to discuss the launch of the journal in a collective way.

?

Besides
letting people know about the zero issue, we need to discuss the first issue of
the journal. We have written a proposal, you will find it attached. Of course
this is only an idea and we would like to discuss it with all the editorial
board in order to make a common decision and work together on it. If there are
other topics that someone would like to propose, or more ideas and suggestions
about this proposal, please feel free to contribute to the discussion.

?

Also, we
would like to make a couple of methodological proposals. The first is to have
specific editors for each of the two journal sections (Occupations and
Anomalies). This would facilitate a division of labor within the editorial
board which would greatly assist those member of the collective who have been
carrying the weight on this project. The second proposal concerns the complex
question of the peer review. We briefly discussed this at the beginning of this
editorial board list. We want to build a critique of the peer review process
and the system of measure, auditing and ranking of which it is an integral
part. This means approaching the peer review system as a political battlefield.
As an alternative to peer review, Ranabir Samaddar suggested we could practice
a collective reading of the articles for the first issue. Maybe Ranabir could
explain the idea more in depth.

?

All the
best,

?

edu-factory
collective?

?

Edu-factory
Author Guidelines

?

Edu-factory
is a project that depends on volunteer editors for every issue. For this
reason, please ensure that you follow all of the formatting and style
guidelines offered below when submitting a piece.

?

Submission

?

Please
email your submissions to info at edu-factory.org with your paper attached as a
.doc or a .rtf file.

?

Author
Bio

?

The
author(s) ought to supply a brief bio giving name, group of affiliation or
educational institutional, interests, and email address if desired.

?

General
Layout

?

1. The
text should be single-spaced.

2. Start
each paragraph at the margin (no tabs to indent first line). 

3. Place
an extra blank line between paragraphs to separate.

4.
Dashes should be keyed in as double-hyphens with no space at either end. For
example: word--word

?

Spelling
and Quotations

?

Either
British or American English may be used, however this must be consistent
throughout the text. 

?

Similarly
with quotations, either British or American style can be used, however this
must also be consistent throughout the text (British style: single quotation
marks, double quotation marks when there is a quote within a quote. Periods and
commas outside of quotation marks. American style: double quotation marks,
single quotation marks when there is a quote within a quote. Periods and commas
should be enclosed within the quotation marks, with endnote numbers outside).

?

Font and
Size

?

Please
use 12 point font throughout except for the title of the piece, which ought to
be 14 point.

?

Heading
Styles

?

First
level headings: (Boldface, first word capitalized, justified at right margin,
on a separate line)

?

Second
level headings: (Plain type, first word capitalized, justified at right margin,
on a separate line)

?

Third
level headings: (Italic type, first word capitalized, justified at right
margin, on a separate line)

?

Citations
in the Text

?

When
titles of journals or books are mentioned, they should be italicized, not
underlined. 

?

Referencing

?

In order
to avoid the way parenthetical references break up the text, Edu-factory adopts
a system of referencing that uses endnotes. Authors are advised to follow as
closely as possible the Chicago Style of Notation for references, the main
points of which are offered below. For more examples see The Chicago Manual of
Style, 15th edition, available at: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html

?

Endnotes

?

References
to publications which you cite in your paper can be listed in an endnote list
(1, 2, 3) called Endnotes. These should be in superscript both in the text and
in the endnote, and in standard numerals (1, 2, 3, etc.) not roman numerals.
Please do not use footnotes. 

?

Due to
the hypertext formatting, use of endnotes in instances other than referencing a
work should be exceptionally sparing. They should be used only where additional
explanations are absolutely necessary and cannot be incorporated in the text.

?

Because
there is a Reference list, a shortened format can be used to cite references in
the endnotes. For example:

?

1.
Davis, Women, 278. 

2.
Precarias a la deriva, Adrift, 1-3. 

3.
Davis, Cities, 22-24.

?

References

?

Please
provide a list of all references used in the paper at the end of the paper,
beneath the endnotes. The heading for the references should be bold and
right-justified, as References. References are in alphabetical order and list
only those works actually cited in the

text.

?

Begin
each entry at the margin and indent the subsequent lines by ? inch; i.e.,
hanging indent.

?

Separate
the main items in each entry by periods (i.e., name of author, title of book,
etc.) Leave one space between a period and next part of the entry.

?

Publication
date should follow author name. Title of book should be in italics and only the
first word and first word after a colon should be capitalized (see examples).

?

Books--one
author:

?

Davis,
Angela Yvonne. 1981. Women, race and class. New York: Random House.

?

Books--two
authors:

?

Hardt,
Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

?

Editor,
translator, or compiler instead of author:

?

Lattimore,
Richmond, trans. 1951. The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

?

Editor,
translator, or compiler in addition to author:

?

Guattari,
Felix. 1984. Molecular revolution: Psychiatry and politics. Trans. Rosemary
Sheed. 

Harmondsworth
and New York: Penguin.

?

Chapter
in a book:

?

Massumi,
Brian. 2002. Navigating moments. In Hope: New philosophies for change, ed. Mary


Zournazi,
210-244. New York: Routledge. 

?

Preface,
foreword, introduction, or similar part of a book:

?

Hardt,
Michael. 1996. Introduction to Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics,
ed. 

Michael
Hardt and Paolo Virno, 1-13. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota
Press. 

?

Articles

?

For
articles, the title should be in plain text, with only the first word
capitalized; the title of the periodical or edited book should be in italics.

?

For
journals the title is italicized, the volume and issue number of the periodical
are in plain text. The issue number is in parentheses. Page numbers are given
at the end of the reference but without the requirement for "page" or
"p".

?

Article
in a print journal:

?

Precarias
a la deriva. 2004. Adrift through the circuits of feminized precarious work. 

Feminist
Review 77[1]: 157-161.

?

Article
in an online journal: 

?

Berardi,
Franco. 2003. What is the meaning of autonomy today: Subjectivation, social 

composition,
refusal of work. Republicart. URL: http://republicart.net/disc/realpublicspaces/berardi01_en.htm
[accessed January 7, 2004].

?

Newspaper
article:

?

Newspaper
articles may be cited in running text ("As William Niederkorn noted in a
New York Times article on June 20, 2002, . . . ") instead of in a note or
an in-text citation, and they are commonly omitted from a bibliography or
reference list as well.

If the
author chooses to include the article more formally in the reference list then
as follows:

?

Niederkorn,
William. 2002. A scholar recants on his "Shakespeare" discovery. New
York 

Times,
June 20, Arts section, Midwest edition.

?

Internet
Website:

?

Web
sites may be cited in running text ("On its Web site, the Challenging
White Supremacy workshop states . . .") instead of in an in-text citation,
and they are commonly omitted from a bibliography or reference list as well. If
the author chooses to include the article more formally in the reference list
then as follows:

?

Challenging
White Supremacy Workshop. 2004. About us. URL:

http://www.cwsworkshop.org/about.html
[September 10, 2006].

?

Government
document:

?

Royal
Commission on Newspapers. 1981. Report. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services


Canada.

?

Hyperlinks,
Images, Audio and Video

?

We
encourage you to hyperlink passages or phrases in your submission. Please do
this in the original document you submit.

?

Note:
Include all figures/images as images in the manuscript file. Ensure that images
are high-quality (BMP, TIFF, or EPS) formats

?

Please
ensure that supplementary audio and video files are in MPEG formats (i.e. MP3
for audio and MPEG for video). To accomodate the widest readership possible and
users with dial-up Internet access, higher compression rates and, consequently,
smaller files are

preferred.

?

Submission
Preparation Checklist

?

As part
of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's
compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to
authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

?

1. The
submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal
for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the
Editor).

2. The
submission file is in Microsoft Word, RTF, or WordPerfect document file format.

3. When
available, the URLs to access references online are provided, including those
for open access versions of the reference. The URLs are ready to click (e.g., http://pkp.sfu.ca
<http://pkp.sfu.ca/>
).

4. The
text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than
underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and
tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the
end.

5. The
text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the
Author Guidelines, which is found in About the Journal.

?

Copyright
Notice

?

Edu-factory
is anti-copyright. We encourage people to use anything they find here in any
way they please--take risks, contaminate the global mindstream, get themselves
in trouble. It's out of our hands (we, the editors, and you, the writer) once
it's on the site. That's

what it
means to 'publish', no?

?

Privacy
Statement

?

The names and email addresses
entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes
of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any
other party.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/agu_listcultures.org/attachments/20100428/9eb4b209/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: How to Start a University.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 27136 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/agu_listcultures.org/attachments/20100428/9eb4b209/attachment.doc>

From info at edu-factory.org  Wed Apr 28 19:57:09 2010
From: info at edu-factory.org (info at edu-factory.org)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:57:09 +0200
Subject: <editorial board> next issue
Message-ID: <L1LLV9$FA7331CD589F96E337F8FC6855299189@aruba.it>

Dear
all,

?

As you
know, the zero issue of the edu-factory journal was published online at the
beginning of March. We think it's an important achievement: thanks to all the
editorial board for the debate and the collaboration in this project. We would
now like to discuss the launch of the journal in a collective way.

?

Besides
letting people know about the zero issue, we need to discuss the first issue of
the journal. We have written a proposal, you will find it attached. Of course
this is only an idea and we would like to discuss it with all the editorial
board in order to make a common decision and work together on it. If there are
other topics that someone would like to propose, or more ideas and suggestions
about this proposal, please feel free to contribute to the discussion.

?

Also, we
would like to make a couple of methodological proposals. The first is to have
specific editors for each of the two journal sections (Occupations and
Anomalies). This would facilitate a division of labor within the editorial
board which would greatly assist those member of the collective who have been
carrying the weight on this project. The second proposal concerns the complex
question of the peer review. We briefly discussed this at the beginning of this
editorial board list. We want to build a critique of the peer review process
and the system of measure, auditing and ranking of which it is an integral
part. This means approaching the peer review system as a political battlefield.
As an alternative to peer review, Ranabir Samaddar suggested we could practice
a collective reading of the articles for the first issue. Maybe Ranabir could
explain the idea more in depth.

?

All the
best,

?

edu-factory
collective?

?

Edu-factory
Author Guidelines

?

Edu-factory
is a project that depends on volunteer editors for every issue. For this
reason, please ensure that you follow all of the formatting and style
guidelines offered below when submitting a piece.

?

Submission

?

Please
email your submissions to info at edu-factory.org with your paper attached as a
.doc or a .rtf file.

?

Author
Bio

?

The
author(s) ought to supply a brief bio giving name, group of affiliation or
educational institutional, interests, and email address if desired.

?

General
Layout

?

1. The
text should be single-spaced.

2. Start
each paragraph at the margin (no tabs to indent first line). 

3. Place
an extra blank line between paragraphs to separate.

4.
Dashes should be keyed in as double-hyphens with no space at either end. For
example: word--word

?

Spelling
and Quotations

?

Either
British or American English may be used, however this must be consistent
throughout the text. 

?

Similarly
with quotations, either British or American style can be used, however this
must also be consistent throughout the text (British style: single quotation
marks, double quotation marks when there is a quote within a quote. Periods and
commas outside of quotation marks. American style: double quotation marks,
single quotation marks when there is a quote within a quote. Periods and commas
should be enclosed within the quotation marks, with endnote numbers outside).

?

Font and
Size

?

Please
use 12 point font throughout except for the title of the piece, which ought to
be 14 point.

?

Heading
Styles

?

First
level headings: (Boldface, first word capitalized, justified at right margin,
on a separate line)

?

Second
level headings: (Plain type, first word capitalized, justified at right margin,
on a separate line)

?

Third
level headings: (Italic type, first word capitalized, justified at right
margin, on a separate line)

?

Citations
in the Text

?

When
titles of journals or books are mentioned, they should be italicized, not
underlined. 

?

Referencing

?

In order
to avoid the way parenthetical references break up the text, Edu-factory adopts
a system of referencing that uses endnotes. Authors are advised to follow as
closely as possible the Chicago Style of Notation for references, the main
points of which are offered below. For more examples see The Chicago Manual of
Style, 15th edition, available at: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html

?

Endnotes

?

References
to publications which you cite in your paper can be listed in an endnote list
(1, 2, 3) called Endnotes. These should be in superscript both in the text and
in the endnote, and in standard numerals (1, 2, 3, etc.) not roman numerals.
Please do not use footnotes. 

?

Due to
the hypertext formatting, use of endnotes in instances other than referencing a
work should be exceptionally sparing. They should be used only where additional
explanations are absolutely necessary and cannot be incorporated in the text.

?

Because
there is a Reference list, a shortened format can be used to cite references in
the endnotes. For example:

?

1.
Davis, Women, 278. 

2.
Precarias a la deriva, Adrift, 1-3. 

3.
Davis, Cities, 22-24.

?

References

?

Please
provide a list of all references used in the paper at the end of the paper,
beneath the endnotes. The heading for the references should be bold and
right-justified, as References. References are in alphabetical order and list
only those works actually cited in the

text.

?

Begin
each entry at the margin and indent the subsequent lines by ? inch; i.e.,
hanging indent.

?

Separate
the main items in each entry by periods (i.e., name of author, title of book,
etc.) Leave one space between a period and next part of the entry.

?

Publication
date should follow author name. Title of book should be in italics and only the
first word and first word after a colon should be capitalized (see examples).

?

Books--one
author:

?

Davis,
Angela Yvonne. 1981. Women, race and class. New York: Random House.

?

Books--two
authors:

?

Hardt,
Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

?

Editor,
translator, or compiler instead of author:

?

Lattimore,
Richmond, trans. 1951. The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

?

Editor,
translator, or compiler in addition to author:

?

Guattari,
Felix. 1984. Molecular revolution: Psychiatry and politics. Trans. Rosemary
Sheed. 

Harmondsworth
and New York: Penguin.

?

Chapter
in a book:

?

Massumi,
Brian. 2002. Navigating moments. In Hope: New philosophies for change, ed. Mary


Zournazi,
210-244. New York: Routledge. 

?

Preface,
foreword, introduction, or similar part of a book:

?

Hardt,
Michael. 1996. Introduction to Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics,
ed. 

Michael
Hardt and Paolo Virno, 1-13. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota
Press. 

?

Articles

?

For
articles, the title should be in plain text, with only the first word
capitalized; the title of the periodical or edited book should be in italics.

?

For
journals the title is italicized, the volume and issue number of the periodical
are in plain text. The issue number is in parentheses. Page numbers are given
at the end of the reference but without the requirement for "page" or
"p".

?

Article
in a print journal:

?

Precarias
a la deriva. 2004. Adrift through the circuits of feminized precarious work. 

Feminist
Review 77[1]: 157-161.

?

Article
in an online journal: 

?

Berardi,
Franco. 2003. What is the meaning of autonomy today: Subjectivation, social 

composition,
refusal of work. Republicart. URL: http://republicart.net/disc/realpublicspaces/berardi01_en.htm
[accessed January 7, 2004].

?

Newspaper
article:

?

Newspaper
articles may be cited in running text ("As William Niederkorn noted in a
New York Times article on June 20, 2002, . . . ") instead of in a note or
an in-text citation, and they are commonly omitted from a bibliography or
reference list as well.

If the
author chooses to include the article more formally in the reference list then
as follows:

?

Niederkorn,
William. 2002. A scholar recants on his "Shakespeare" discovery. New
York 

Times,
June 20, Arts section, Midwest edition.

?

Internet
Website:

?

Web
sites may be cited in running text ("On its Web site, the Challenging
White Supremacy workshop states . . .") instead of in an in-text citation,
and they are commonly omitted from a bibliography or reference list as well. If
the author chooses to include the article more formally in the reference list
then as follows:

?

Challenging
White Supremacy Workshop. 2004. About us. URL:

http://www.cwsworkshop.org/about.html
[September 10, 2006].

?

Government
document:

?

Royal
Commission on Newspapers. 1981. Report. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services


Canada.

?

Hyperlinks,
Images, Audio and Video

?

We
encourage you to hyperlink passages or phrases in your submission. Please do
this in the original document you submit.

?

Note:
Include all figures/images as images in the manuscript file. Ensure that images
are high-quality (BMP, TIFF, or EPS) formats

?

Please
ensure that supplementary audio and video files are in MPEG formats (i.e. MP3
for audio and MPEG for video). To accomodate the widest readership possible and
users with dial-up Internet access, higher compression rates and, consequently,
smaller files are

preferred.

?

Submission
Preparation Checklist

?

As part
of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's
compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to
authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

?

1. The
submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal
for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the
Editor).

2. The
submission file is in Microsoft Word, RTF, or WordPerfect document file format.

3. When
available, the URLs to access references online are provided, including those
for open access versions of the reference. The URLs are ready to click (e.g., http://pkp.sfu.ca
<http://pkp.sfu.ca/>
).

4. The
text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than
underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and
tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the
end.

5. The
text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the
Author Guidelines, which is found in About the Journal.

?

Copyright
Notice

?

Edu-factory
is anti-copyright. We encourage people to use anything they find here in any
way they please--take risks, contaminate the global mindstream, get themselves
in trouble. It's out of our hands (we, the editors, and you, the writer) once
it's on the site. That's

what it
means to 'publish', no?

?

Privacy
Statement

?

The names and email addresses
entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes
of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any
other party.









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/agu_listcultures.org/attachments/20100428/81f890af/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: How to Start a University.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 27136 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/agu_listcultures.org/attachments/20100428/81f890af/attachment.doc>

From info at edu-factory.org  Thu Apr 29 16:17:59 2010
From: info at edu-factory.org (info at edu-factory.org)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:17:59 +0200
Subject: <editorial board> first issue
Message-ID: <L1N6DZ$4F4003EF82FDAECCF900F93E380C5369@aruba.it>

Dear all,
As you know, the zero issue of the edu-factory journal was published online at the beginning of March. We think it's an important achievement: thanks to all the editorial board for the debate and the collaboration in this project. We would now like to discuss the launch of the journal in a collective way.
Besides letting people know about the zero issue, we need to discuss the first issue of the journal. We have written a proposal, you will find it attached. Of course this is only an idea and we would like to discuss it with all the editorial board in order to make a common decision and work together on it. If there are other topics that someone would like to propose, or more ideas and suggestions about this proposal, please feel free to contribute to the discussion.
Also, we would like to make a couple of methodological proposals. The first is to have specific editors for each of the two journal sections (Occupations and Anomalies). This would facilitate a division of labor within the editorial board which would greatly assist those member of the collective who have been carrying the weight on this project. The second proposal concerns the complex question of the peer review. We briefly discussed this at the beginning of this editorial board list. We want to build a critique of the peer review process and the system of measure, auditing and ranking of which it is an integral part. This means approaching the peer review system as a political battlefield. As an alternative to peer review, Ranabir Samaddar suggested we could practice a collective reading of the articles for the first issue. Maybe Ranabir could explain the idea more in depth.
All the best,
edu-factory collective
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/agu_listcultures.org/attachments/20100429/f934b713/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: How to Start a University.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 27648 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/agu_listcultures.org/attachments/20100429/f934b713/attachment.doc>

From geert at desk.nl  Thu Apr 29 22:32:13 2010
From: geert at desk.nl (geert lovink)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:32:13 +0200
Subject: <editorial board> first issue
In-Reply-To: <L1N6DZ$4F4003EF82FDAECCF900F93E380C5369@aruba.it>
References: <L1N6DZ$4F4003EF82FDAECCF900F93E380C5369@aruba.it>
Message-ID: <2647BC8F-BA6F-453A-9D7C-635A8A21027D@desk.nl>

Dear all,

this all sounds really interesting.

I am involved in some debates around peer review but do not find it  
all that exciting to write a full article about this matter. It is  
much more according to the topic to do this as a dialogue with a few,  
or write a manifesto with many. I am not sure how many of you followed  
the debate on the matter on my Facebook page. I hear remarks  
everywhere that peer review is dead but the machine is still running.  
People would love it to disappear because it has been such a downer,  
such an important contributor to the lowering of quality. Peer  
reviewing has led to the exact opposite it claims and made academic  
journals uninteresting, boring and unreadable. On top of that it has  
fostered corruption type politics and created an atmosphere of revenge  
(in the case of anonymous peer review).

Below a weird email that Soenke received. It shows that the science  
community really struggles but in the refuses to do anything about the  
underlying logic of cynical power and control.

Best, Geert

--

From: ISPR 2010 <ispr at mail.sysconfer.org>
Date: 2010/4/25
Subject: CFP - Symposium on Peer Reviewing
To: SOENKE.ZEHLE at web.de

Dear Soenke Zehle:

As you know, only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed
that 'peer review works well as it is.' (Chubin and Hackett, 1990;
p.192)

"A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer
review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of
scientific research." (Horrobin, 2001)

Horrobin concludes that peer review "is a non-validated charade whose
processes generate results little better than does chance." (Horrobin,
2001) This has been statistically proven and reported by an increasing
number of journal editors.

But, "Peer Review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific
edifice" (Goodstein, 2000), it is a necessary condition in quality
assurance for Scientific/Engineering publications, and "Peer Review is
central to the organization of modern science?why not apply scientific
[and engineering] methods to the peer review process" (Horrobin,
2001).

This is the purpose of The 2nd International Symposium on Peer
Reviewing: ISPR 2010 (http://www.sysconfer.org/ispr) being organized
in the context of The SUMMER 4th International Conference on Knowledge
Generation, Communication and Management: KGCM 2010
(http://www.sysconfer.org/kgcm), which will be held on June 29th -
July 2nd, in Orlando, Florida, USA.

=======================================================
Deadlines for ISPR 2010
May 4th, 2010, for papers/abstracts submissions and Invited Sessions  
Proposals
May 18th, 2010: Authors Notification
June 1st, 2010: Camera ready, final version.
=======================================================

ISPR 2010 Organizing Committee is planning to include in the symposium
program 1) sessions with formal presentations, and/or 2) informal
conversational sessions, and/or 3) hybrid sessions, which will have
formal presentations first and informal conversations later.

Submissions for Face-to-Face or for Virtual Participation are both
accepted. Both kinds of submissions will have the same reviewing
process and the accepted papers will be included in the same
proceedings.

Pre-Conference and Post-conference Virtual sessions (via electronic
forums) will be held for each session included in the conference
program, so that sessions papers can be read before the conference,
and authors presenting at the same session can interact during one
week before and after the conference. Authors can also participate in
peer-to-peer reviewing in virtual sessions.

All Submitted papers/abstracts will go through three reviewing
processes: (1) double-blind (at least three reviewers), (2) non-blind,
and (3) participative peer reviews. These three kinds of review will
support the selection process of those papers/abstracts that will be
accepted for their presentation at the conference, as well as those to
be selected for their publication in JSCI Journal.

Authors of accepted papers who registered in the conference can have
access to the evaluations and possible feedback provided by the
reviewers who recommended the acceptance of their papers/abstracts, so
they can accordingly improve the final version of their papers.
Non-registered authors will not have access to the reviews of their
respective submissions.

Authors of the best 10%-20% of the papers presented at the conference
(included those virtually presented) will be invited to adapt their
papers for their publication in the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics
and Informatics.

Best regards,

ISPR 2010 Organizing Committee

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email
to remove at mail.sysconfer.org with REMOVE MLCONFERENCES in the subject
line. Address: Torre Profesional La California, Av. Francisco de
Miranda, Caracas, Venezuela.

References

Chubin, D. R. and Hackett E. J., 1990, Peerless Science, Peer Review
and U.S. Science Policy; New York, State University of New York Press.

Horrobin, D., 2001, "Something Rotten at the Core of Science?" Trends
in Pharmacological Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 2, February 2001. Also at
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sci.html and
http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/peerrev4.htm (both Web pages were
accessed on February 1, 2010)

Goodstein, D., 2000, "How Science Works", U.S. Federal Judiciary
Reference Manual on Evidence, pp. 66-72 (referenced in Hoorobin, 2000)







From raunig at eipcp.net  Fri Apr 30 17:51:28 2010
From: raunig at eipcp.net (gerald raunig)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:51:28 +0200
Subject: <editorial board> first issue
In-Reply-To: <L1N6DZ$4F4003EF82FDAECCF900F93E380C5369@aruba.it>
References: <L1N6DZ$4F4003EF82FDAECCF900F93E380C5369@aruba.it>
Message-ID: <F4578A6AA3EE4FD8AE8BABB45630EF16@ZHdKL120>

thanks a lot for moving on. here's a short response to the collective's
proposal and geert's reply: 
as i understood the - excellent - abstract on "how to start a university",
its content is not so much focussing on the problem of peer review. still,
there could and should be a part of the "first issue" devoted to the more
general question of a critique of the "system of measure" with the peer
review system just as one effect or function of this system. from my
perspective the issue should take into account the terrifying combination of
modularizing (as measuring, striating, standardizing, counting, rigidly
forming the singularities involved in the educational field) AND modulating
(as eternal "transition", constant and infinite necessity to vary, change,
and adapt) in the emerging corporate universities. 
on the level of anomalies and alternatives: ranabir's suggestion of a
collective reading (which of course might get complicated in a translocal
situation) could be a starting point, not only as practice of the
edu-factory-journal itself, but also on the level of reflecting on
methodologies of collective exchange and discussion of text production. and
hopefully there is also a multitude of other practices that thwart the above
mentioned twofold pressure of modulation and start different kinds of
universities. i would be willing to collaborate in the search for these,
also beyond the call for papers - as for division of the hard work, i am
sorry, my english is too poor to get involved in the real editorial process.
saluti,
g.
 


  _____  

Von: agu-bounces at listcultures.org [mailto:agu-bounces at listcultures.org] Im
Auftrag von info at edu-factory.org
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. April 2010 16:18
An: agu at listcultures.org
Betreff: <editorial board> first issue



Dear all,

As you know, the zero issue of the edu-factory journal was published online
at the beginning of March. We think it's an important achievement: thanks to
all the editorial board for the debate and the collaboration in this
project. We would now like to discuss the launch of the journal in a
collective way.

Besides letting people know about the zero issue, we need to discuss the
first issue of the journal. We have written a proposal, you will find it
attached. Of course this is only an idea and we would like to discuss it
with all the editorial board in order to make a common decision and work
together on it. If there are other topics that someone would like to
propose, or more ideas and suggestions about this proposal, please feel free
to contribute to the discussion.

Also, we would like to make a couple of methodological proposals. The first
is to have specific editors for each of the two journal sections
(Occupations and Anomalies). This would facilitate a division of labor
within the editorial board which would greatly assist those member of the
collective who have been carrying the weight on this project. The second
proposal concerns the complex question of the peer review. We briefly
discussed this at the beginning of this editorial board list. We want to
build a critique of the peer review process and the system of measure,
auditing and ranking of which it is an integral part. This means approaching
the peer review system as a political battlefield. As an alternative to peer
review, Ranabir Samaddar suggested we could practice a collective reading of
the articles for the first issue. Maybe Ranabir could explain the idea more
in depth.

All the best,

edu-factory collective


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/agu_listcultures.org/attachments/20100430/8152272f/attachment.html>

From ranabir at mcrg.ac.in  Fri Apr 30 18:14:38 2010
From: ranabir at mcrg.ac.in (ranabir at mcrg.ac.in)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:14:38 -0400
Subject: <editorial board> first issue
Message-ID: <380-22010453016143815@M2W121.mail2web.com>

Dear Gerald,
Thanks. Your letter makes sense.
Ranabir

Original Message:
-----------------
From: gerald raunig raunig at eipcp.net
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:51:28 +0200
To: agu at listcultures.org
Subject: Re: <editorial board> first issue


thanks a lot for moving on. here's a short response to the collective's
proposal and geert's reply: 
as i understood the - excellent - abstract on "how to start a university",
its content is not so much focussing on the problem of peer review. still,
there could and should be a part of the "first issue" devoted to the more
general question of a critique of the "system of measure" with the peer
review system just as one effect or function of this system. from my
perspective the issue should take into account the terrifying combination of
modularizing (as measuring, striating, standardizing, counting, rigidly
forming the singularities involved in the educational field) AND modulating
(as eternal "transition", constant and infinite necessity to vary, change,
and adapt) in the emerging corporate universities. 
on the level of anomalies and alternatives: ranabir's suggestion of a
collective reading (which of course might get complicated in a translocal
situation) could be a starting point, not only as practice of the
edu-factory-journal itself, but also on the level of reflecting on
methodologies of collective exchange and discussion of text production. and
hopefully there is also a multitude of other practices that thwart the above
mentioned twofold pressure of modulation and start different kinds of
universities. i would be willing to collaborate in the search for these,
also beyond the call for papers - as for division of the hard work, i am
sorry, my english is too poor to get involved in the real editorial process.
saluti,
g.
 


  _____  

Von: agu-bounces at listcultures.org [mailto:agu-bounces at listcultures.org] Im
Auftrag von info at edu-factory.org
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. April 2010 16:18
An: agu at listcultures.org
Betreff: <editorial board> first issue



Dear all,

As you know, the zero issue of the edu-factory journal was published online
at the beginning of March. We think it's an important achievement: thanks to
all the editorial board for the debate and the collaboration in this
project. We would now like to discuss the launch of the journal in a
collective way.

Besides letting people know about the zero issue, we need to discuss the
first issue of the journal. We have written a proposal, you will find it
attached. Of course this is only an idea and we would like to discuss it
with all the editorial board in order to make a common decision and work
together on it. If there are other topics that someone would like to
propose, or more ideas and suggestions about this proposal, please feel free
to contribute to the discussion.

Also, we would like to make a couple of methodological proposals. The first
is to have specific editors for each of the two journal sections
(Occupations and Anomalies). This would facilitate a division of labor
within the editorial board which would greatly assist those member of the
collective who have been carrying the weight on this project. The second
proposal concerns the complex question of the peer review. We briefly
discussed this at the beginning of this editorial board list. We want to
build a critique of the peer review process and the system of measure,
auditing and ranking of which it is an integral part. This means approaching
the peer review system as a political battlefield. As an alternative to peer
review, Ranabir Samaddar suggested we could practice a collective reading of
the articles for the first issue. Maybe Ranabir could explain the idea more
in depth.

All the best,

edu-factory collective




--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft? Windows? and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting