CZ:Charter drafting committee/Position statements/Tom Morris
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
On the issue of Neutrality, I have no problem with articles expressing a range of views, but I also think that sometimes there are things which are just wrong, and CZ needs to reflect that. I'm not a big fan of the Healing Arts Workgroup, as it seems to allow articles on scientifically dubious topics to avoid the peer review process that the Health Sciences editors would apply. As I've said before, we wouldn't have an Economics workgroup and a 'Monetary Arts' workgroup that operated with fundamentally different assumptions. Quite how workgroups and sub-workgroups are created is a matter I think the Charter committee, and the CZ community generally, will have to face.
I also think that the approval process needs to be much more agile and responsive - and editors more pro-active! - if we are going to start publishing more approved articles. This means shorter articles, with a more rapid approval and re-approval cycle. The CZ Charter needs to define the role or spirit of the approval process rather than narrowly define how that is implemented. I tend to prefer processes where we define what our intentions are up front - the CZ charter ought to describe our principles and intentions - but then allow flexibility and trial-and-error in how those principles are implemented.
On the issue of Neutrality, I have no problem with articles expressing a range of views, but I also think that sometimes there are things which are just wrong, and CZ needs to reflect that. I'm not a big fan of the Healing Arts Workgroup, as it seems to allow articles on scientifically dubious topics to avoid the peer review process that the Health Sciences editors would apply. As I've said before, we wouldn't have an Economics workgroup and a 'Monetary Arts' workgroup that operated with fundamentally different assumptions. Quite how workgroups and sub-workgroups are created is a matter I think the Charter committee, and the CZ community generally, will have to face.
I also think that the approval process needs to be much more agile and responsive - and editors more pro-active! - if we are going to start publishing more approved articles. This means shorter articles, with a more rapid approval and re-approval cycle. The CZ Charter needs to define the role or spirit of the approval process rather than narrowly define how that is implemented. I tend to prefer processes where we define what our intentions are up front - the CZ charter ought to describe our principles and intentions - but then allow flexibility and trial-and-error in how those principles are implemented.