I like the concept, but my gut reaction is that the best way to address
this issue is for authors to know where they're publishing and communicate
It's essential for authors to make sure a submission is appropriate and ask
for timelines, feedback, or anything else that might be appropriate. It's
also not a bad idea to talk to colleagues about what you're thinking of
doing. This gives far more accurate expectations than ratings by a small
number of unknown individuals who may have been working with a different
For example, the woman who had the bad experience simply sent in an
article. She didn't check with the editor to make sure the topic was what
they're looking for. She probably didn't adapt it to the style or
objectives. She waited 6 full months after hearing nothing before even
sending a ping. Upon receiving no response, she waited another couple
months before bugging them.
Had she done simply checked with the editor to see if her topic was
appropriate, they probably would have either said no or told her what she'd
need to do to make it appropriate. Had she asked about timelines or
anything up front, she would have known when to expect a response and when
to follow up. Her situation bad, but it was entirely avoidable.
I'm not suggesting that ratings are a bad idea, but I wouldn't want to
encourage anyone to use them as a substitute for proper communication.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:37 PM, David Lowe <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> C4L folk-
> To be comprehensive, the project this guy suggests would be a big
> undertaking, but I'm thinking about running the idea past some possible
> library-land funders and getting back to him:
> Funding aside, anyone interested in the concept? Happy to hear your
> thoughts, online or off.
> Just have this wild notion that, if done right, we could connect regular
> (annual?) qualitative metrics from such a portal and other sources to
> metrics for content in our repository and become a depended-upon component
> of the measuring infrastructure related to tenure, promotion, and the
> like--in addition to the preservation/archival role we serve.