Re: Help a PhD student filling in a questionnaire (10 minutes)

On 17/06/2019 12.17, Bucur, C.I. wrote:
> Hi all, 
>  
> I am a PhD student investigating how the scientific peer reviewing
> process can be made semantically structured, and I would like to ask for
> your help by filling in the short questionnaire below (about 10 minutes). 
> 
> If the day of the month of your birthday is an EVEN number, use this
> link: https://tinyurl.com/Part-1-Questionnaire-SemWebW3C
> If the day of the month of your birthday is an ODD number, use this
> link: https://tinyurl.com/Part-2-Questionnaire-SemWebW3C
> 
> Your help is very much appreciated. If you have more time, you are also
> very welcome to fill in the second questionnaire above as well. 
> 
> Thank you very much! 
> 
> Regards, 
> Cristina
> 


Done.

Good questionnaire. Consider expanding.

Capturing reviewer's intent/motivation at the time of response would
help. In addition to existing literature:

If you haven't yet, you may want to look into the Web Annotation
Vocabulary ( https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/ ) and perhaps
consider extending motivations specific to reviewing. WA has
as:assessing but that's relatively basic/general.

For example, https://dokie.li/ uses oa:assessing with some other details
for reviewers to select and:

* approve: Strong point? Convincing argument?
* disapprove: Weak point? Error? Inaccurate?
* specificity: Citation or specificity needed?

There is also commenting and replying but they are considered to be
orthogonal to assessing.

What's missing, and what your research/questionnaire hints at is
incorporating the complete review process eg. author's response to the
reviewer as well as reviewer acknowledging the response. If you have
further ideas on that or want to test it out, considering looking into
https://github.com/linkeddata/dokieli/issues/ and maybe issues
pertaining to resolving annotation updates.


Any way.. not to discourage you, but none of this will be used in
practice (eg. especially by the SW/LD research community) if researchers
and organisers continue to work with for-profit third-party publishers,
PDFs, and Easychair (or alike) systems :S  If you put that aside, there
is an exciting world of opportunities.

Good luck,

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i