Co authors Fred the Heretic, Roger F Malina. Tina Qin. Fred Turner, Robert Stern. Fishwick and anyone who changed anything.
Dec 15 2024
Context
Mission Statement
Off-Center of Emergence Studies (OC4ES) is a hybrid between a “Think Tank” and an astronomical observatory; we seek to detect and study interesting new phenomena that have emerged in nature and that are emerging in human activities. We are trans-cultural and trans-generational group of volunteers who are especially interested in two activities: 1) bringing together creative experts from different fields to discuss emergence in their fields; and 2) teaching students about emergence and how it is affecting and will affect their lives and careers. Above all else, OC4Es works to foster a transdisciplinary network of emergence studies in all parts of UTD in a continuing effort to smash the boundaries between art, science, business, and government. We meet weekly to discuss progress. Some of us write papers and poems, make videos and teach classes.
Publishing
As part of this mission the OCES seeks to document and shares the work it does with others outside its close network of members.
These will be published in a variety for forms
Method
We will draw on the principles of Bohmian dialogue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue#The_theory_of_dialogue
Principles of dialogue
[edit]
- The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation. “…In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It’s open and free.” (Bohm, “On Dialogue”, pp. 18–19.)”
- Each individual agrees to suspend judgement in the conversation. (Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn’t like, he does not attack that idea.) “…people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don’t believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don’t judge them as good or bad…(Bohm, “On Dialogue”, p. 22.)”
- As these individuals “suspend judgement” they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual has a “good idea” that he might otherwise hold back from the group because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)
- Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals’ ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)
Fred the Heretic Proposes these initial guidelines as of dec 15 2025 based on this prompt: please draft peer reviewing guidelines for the off center for emergence studies publications
Peer Review Guidelines for Off Center for Emergence Studies Publications
- Purpose of Review
Peer reviewers are collaborators, offering constructive feedback that ensures the highest intellectual, poetic, and thematic quality in the work. Your role is to evaluate clarity, originality, depth, and alignment with the principles of the Off Center for Emergence Studies, emphasizing exploration of complex ideas, poetic excellence, and humanistic inquiry. - General Criteria
- Relevance: Does the work engage with themes central to emergence studies, such as transformation, interconnectedness, or speculative futures?
- Originality: Does the work present fresh ideas or novel perspectives, avoiding clichés or overly derivative forms?
- Depth: Does the work delve into meaningful questions or narratives that reflect both intellectual rigor and artistic vision?
- Clarity and Accessibility: Is the content coherent and accessible to a thoughtful, interdisciplinary audience without oversimplifying complex ideas?
- Thematic and Stylistic Considerations
- Poetic and Narrative Voice: Is the voice authentic and resonant? Does it evoke mixed emotions, engaging both the heart and mind?
- Imagery and Metaphor: Does the author use sensory and visual imagery effectively, avoiding the abstract when the concrete would strengthen the work?
- Structure: If the work employs meter, rhyme, or unconventional forms, do these choices serve its purpose? If it is prose, is the argument or narrative compellingly structured?
- Engagement with Form and Tradition: Does the work interact meaningfully with literary or philosophical traditions, either by embracing or reimagining them?
- Technical Aspects
- Grammar, punctuation, and formatting should support rather than distract from the content.
- Citations and references should be accurate, adhering to the publication’s style.
- Tone of Feedback
- Be constructive and specific. Identify strengths and opportunities for improvement.
- Offer actionable suggestions that respect the author’s intent while guiding refinement.
- Ethical Standards
- Ensure confidentiality. Do not share content or ideas outside the review process.
- Avoid bias. Declare any conflicts of interest.
- Practical Workflow
- Provide comments directly on the text where possible, and summarize key feedback in a review letter.
- Include positive affirmations as well as critical notes to maintain a collaborative and respectful tone.
- Specialized Considerations for Genre
- Poetry: Evaluate rhythm, musicality, and how well the piece achieves emotional resonance. Does it challenge or uplift traditional boundaries?
- Prose or Critique: Assess the argument’s coherence, the strength of evidence, and the originality of insights.
- Epic or Narrative Works: Consider the balance of storytelling and thematic exploration. Does the work maintain momentum while developing its ideas or characters?
By following these guidelines, reviewers uphold the mission of the Off Center for Emergence Studies to foster groundbreaking, thought-provoking contributions to literature, philosophy, and the arts.
The Off Center for Emergence Studies feedback loop discussions
References Ideas and Points
- This gives a useful picture of peer review in the humanities and social sciences.
Fred
https://search.app/9nZu83K7aEpuGrVy6 - How does a reviewer know this?
If single-anonymous, any ethical violations the author is known to have committed (e.g., Title IX violations such as sexually harassing and/or abusing students). Journals and presses have reputations to protect and we don’t want to publish work by known predators or trans-exclusionary ‘feminists,’ etc.
- I do think it is a mistake for humanities to review medical studies. The question of competencies is real. What does Dr. Jones think of this essay?
Bob
I’ve read through the paper, which looks both interesting and competent, and makes an important point about the limits of reductionist diagnosis and treatment.
- I’ll be happy to review it, but different disciplines have different protocols for peer review, so we need to evolve a policy for the kind of multidisciplinary work represented by this paper. In emergence studies, multidisciplinarity is virtually demanded and almost a criterion of quality.
Fred
- Peer reviewing is a common and essential part of everyday scholarly labor. But like many day-to-day academic activities, graduate programs rarely teach students how to be an effective peer reviewer. It’s mostly something you learn by inference as you read reviews of your own work.
- I have seen a lot of peer review reports—I edited an academic journal for three years, and currently am an acquisitions editor at a scholarly press—and I can attest that at least among humanities scholars it’s not common knowledge what a good peer review report should contain. Some reports are short and focus only on a few things; some reports track every copy editing error; some reports—the most thoughtful reports—read like a whole conference paper discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Some people under-do it, some people overdo it.
- I thought I would make everyone’s job easier—editors, reviewers, and authors—by explaining what a peer report needs to do and what the most effective reports do and do not contain.
- Who is the audience?
- The most important source of confusion when it comes to writing peer reviews has to do with the report’s audience. Editors and editorial boards are the primary audience for peer review reports; authors are only the secondary audience. Editors and editorial boards take reports in advisement when deciding whether to accept a manuscript and in advising which revisions they will require.
- Having read hundreds of peer review reports, it appears to be the case that most reviewers mistakenly treat authors as the primary audience. And in so doing they make another mistake: they approach peer reviewing like a form of grading, where the point is to account for what is correct and incorrect. But because the primary audience for peer reviews is editors and editorial boards, peer review reports need to be more like tenure & promotion letters or recommendation letters because they are explaining and situating work for non-experts. As such, their primary objective is to first situate the work in the wider field and point out the contribution the work makes to the existing scholarly literature, and then comment on the relative quality of the scholarship.
- So, while editors definitely do want suggestions for revisions, those should come after a discussion of the project’s main argument and how that is situated with respect to current scholarly literature.
- What should a peer review report cover/contain?
- Editors have some knowledge of the manuscript’s field, but they generally are not experts in the literature specific to a project’s subfield(s). For this reason, the first thing a peer review report needs to do is to identify what the manuscript’s main argument is, what its methods are, and how these are situated with respect to current scholarly literature. The report should also clearly identify and explain the project’s primary and secondary scholarly contributions to that literature. What is this project doing, how is it related to what’s going on in the field right now, and what are the key contributions this project makes (or, with some revisions, could make)?
- Another important thing peer reviewers need to do is assess the quality of the scholarship: is the research and writing adequately rigorous and ethical? In assessing this, it is crucial that you evaluate the project in its own terms and don’t try to make it the project you would have done.
- That said, authors also need to be sure to manage reviewer expectations, especially if a project uses any nontraditional or experimental methods.
- Also, if an editor has asked you to review a project, it’s likely they want the perspective of someone in your field; however, if it’s an interdisciplinary project please be sensitive to this. In such cases, it’s often helpful to flag things that audiences from your discipline might not understand or might misinterpret. Again, the point isn’t to turn an interdisciplinary project into a disciplinary one, but to help authors adequately contextualize their project for a disciplinarily heterogenous audience.
- In cases where it is clear the manuscript is a revised dissertation and still needs some work to get it from student level to professional level, please approach your task as a form of mentorship. Peer reviews are one of the primary ways this mentorship happens. Be charitable and help guide the author to and through the revisions they need to make to help their project realize its full potential.
- Here are some things reviewers should comment on:
Main argument: re-state and explain in non-expert terms.
Scholarly contribution: explain if and how this manuscript makes a contribution to scholarship in XYZ field(s).
Situation wrt the literature in XYZ field(s): With whom is this project in conversation? Does it leave anyone important out? Is it only in conversation with cis/white/men?
Structure and organization: is this clear and effective?
Scope: What does the project cover? Does it do what it claims/aims to do? Does the focus need to be narrowed or broadened?
Methods: What methods does it use, and does it use them successfully?
Relevance: To whom is this relevant, and how?
Quality of scholarship: research, citations, etc.
Quality of analysis: What is the author doing with their archival material/data/etc? Is the analysis coherent? Original? Adequately rooted in the data?
Quality of argumentation
Potential objections the author hasn’t addressed
Audiences who would be interested in the project
If single-anonymous, any ethical violations the author is known to have committed (e.g., Title IX violations such as sexually harassing and/or abusing students). Journals and presses have reputations to protect and we don’t want to publish work by known predators or trans-exclusionary ‘feminists,’ etc.
Whether you would accept, request revisions & resubmit, or reject the submission.
Here are some things reviewers should not comment on:
Copy editing matters. We pay someone else to do that.
Voice or tone: only point out uncharitable and/or sexist/racist/etc. cases. If a project has a more casual tone, editors already recognize this and are fine with a less stodgily academic project.
If single-anonymous (as most book proposal/manuscript peer reviews are), the author’s employment status.
- Other helpful things
If a press or journal uses a template, please use the template. If they don’t have a template, it’s helpful to use descriptive headings and break the review down into sections–that helps editors and boards navigate what would otherwise be a long block of text more quickly.
- Remember to not put your name in the document or file name.
- I know everyone is overwhelmed and being forced to do too much with too few resources, but please try to complete reviews in a timely manner. Your colleagues’ careers directly depend upon it.