Substantive Dimensions of the Deliberations
To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.
The transition to Stage 2 of the deliberations is currently underway but will take some time to complete. In the meantime, we very much welcome additional contributions to the existing threads in this forum.
For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.
doing the thing right *and* doing the right thing
I don’t mean to imply that this is happening here, but rather that it could, if we're not vigilant to guard against it. I see both worrisome and hopeful signs. With the envisioned output of this effort is a set of Community Transparency Statements to guide publishers, editors, researchers, and students, then it seems the focus of this effort is on doing the thing right -- in this case, the thing is transparency, and the struggle is about how to do it. That’s good, but more is needed. It seems many of those who have raised concerns are asking something different: whether to do it and why. In other words, they're asking whether we're doing the right thing. In this case, the right thing is high quality research. Both questions are important. The second one needs to be asked at least as often as the first.