[Insight-users] Re: [Insight-developers] IJ Volunteers : THE
MATRIX : RED PILL
Zachary Pincus
zpincus at stanford.edu
Sat Sep 16 18:24:24 EDT 2006
I am rather upset by both Luis's email and Stephen's original
response to Gaëtan. (Thanks Stephen for the second email listing new
changes to the IJ; they look to be going in the right direction.)
Gaëtan has been one of -- if not *the* -- most enthusiastic
participants in the IJ community, both in terms of writing articles
for the Journal and reviewing them.
He sent a fairly innocuous email to the developer list asking about a
status of an initiative suggested earlier to get more reviews for the
articles. Gaëtan also stated something that I suspect every IJ
contributor has found: that as things stand it is relatively
discouraging to submit things to the IJ.
This is a significant problem, and there really needs to be a
conversation about this. Especially since the IJ is now supposed to
be the gatekeeper for code to be integrated into ITK, a lot of
frequently-requested functionality is present, in limbo waiting in in
the IJ for reviews and potential integration. (For example, I have
sent out three emails in the past month pointing people at my contour-
tracing code from an IJ submission.)
Now, instead of opening up a conversation about what to do, Gaëtan
was attacked with a snide email suggesting nothing positive and
instead thanking him for "volunteering to write reviews". As if
Gaëtan isn't one of the most prolific reviewers (tied for 4th place,
I believe, in terms of number of reviews).
Gaëtan then replied, still in a civil though clearly disappointed
tone, and suggested some potential solutions to the specific issue of
how to integrate good code from the IJ into the toolkit. And for this
he was again attacked by Luis -- on the USERS and DEVELOPERS lists,
not just the dev list where the discussion started -- for "not being
positive enough." Nobody started out more positive about the IJ than
did Gaëtan, and I think his disappointment, one year later, is a sign
that there might be trouble with the IJ process (especially as it
relates with integrating code into the toolkit). What it is not is a
sign that Gaëtan is some kind of malfeasant deserving of two public
chidings for daring to bring up the incontestable fact that there are
some issues with the IJ that need to be seriously addressed.
And yes, there are "owners" of the IJ, within the context that Gaëtan
was addressing, and allowing for language barriers: the people who
decide what bits of code from the IJ go into ITK, and what the
criteria for that decision are. Clearly the IJ is an ongoing
democratic experiment in peer review, but that doesn't change the
fact that it is also a process decided on by the core ITK devs for
fielding new code for ITK. And Gaëtan is right to ask exactly those
people who set those policies for a change in them. The ITK-code-
integration policies were set non-democratically; which is as it
should be since ITK needs a clear core dev group and solid policies
like the backward compatibility policy. But to offer invective when
someone suggests that one of those policies ought to be changed and
to deflect the issue entirely is disingenuous.
I was already a bit sour on the Journal for reasons similar to
Gaëtan's. (Which I will happily discuss at length elsewhere, if need
be.) These responses to legitimate concerns about the IJ and its
relationship with ITK, brought up by an active contributor and
reviewer, sours me further.
And now for a positive contribution:
I think that because there is a lot of useful code in the IJ right
now, and a lot of users of ITK aren't looking at that code, using it,
or evaluating it, that a large majority of that code be included in
ITK in a special directory. Perhaps a subdirectory of "Review". Maybe
everything that the buildbot can compile. Then at least anyone who
gets ITK can see exactly what may be integrated, and can have a
chance at using the code. Also, perhaps a doxygen page for this "pre-
approval" code can be put up at itk.org so that it's easy to see what
code is there available. This, coupled with a readme explaining the
status of the code and the need for reviews, might really help useful
code be (a) disseminated to the ITK community, and (b) get the needed
reviews and bug-testing.
Zach
On Sep 16, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Luis Ibanez wrote:
>
>
> Hi Gaetan,
>
>
> I would suggest that you approach this situation with a more positive
> attitude.
>
>
> You are referring to the IJ the same way a tax-payer will complain
> about the government.
>
>
>
> Complaining and whining is not an effective strategy when you are
> trying
> to change the status quo of a community that has been mushy-minded by
> decades of "Publish or Perish" propaganda.
>
>
>
> The Insight Journal *is not* an Institution,
> The Insight Journal *is* a Community Resource.
>
>
>
> There is no such a thing as "The Owners" of the Insight Journal.
>
>
>
> If you want to define such concept, probably the closest thing to the
> "Owners" of the Journal are the 1,200 subscribers to the ITK users
> list.
>
>
>
> This is a Journal intended to be supported and managed by the
> community.
> This is why it is poised to be a real *peer-review* Journal.
>
>
>
> The concept of "Freedom" is too new for our community, because the
> traditional peer-review process treats authors and readers as children
> who are supervised by the "adult" reviewers. The "adult" reviewers are
> the ones who decide what is good for the children to read. Such roles,
> atrophied critical thinking in the readers and lead them to passively
> accept any published paper as "absolute truth", because it has passed
> through the supposedly "holy" process of review by the "adults".
>
>
>
> Members of our community read technical journals with the same level
> of critical thinking that a watcher of TV-reality-shows exercise while
> sitting empty-minded for hours in front of the TV-set. The concept
> that
> they are actually entitled to question the content of papers is too
> alien for them. The notion that a published paper may contain
> mistakes,
> is a sacrilege for them. The notion that the claims made in a paper
> are supposed to be verified, is a blasphemy to them.
>
>
>
> After all,
>
> "Who are readers to question the judgment of the holy reviewers" ?
>
>
>
> As a consequence our community has developed the laziness of the kid
> that doesn't do his homework until the parents tell them to do so.
>
>
> The concept that *everybody* is entitled to write a review, is too new
> for our community. Most readers and authors assume that "reviewing" is
> an activity exclusively reserved for some "supernatural" beings who
> are
> the "Chosen Ones", the "Holy Reviewers".
>
>
> Authors are still trained to submit papers to Journals and "Pray" for
> the papers to be accepted by the "Chosen Ones".
>
>
> It takes a lot of education, motivation and *repetition* to
> rehabilitate
> readers and authors from the damage that the "Publish or Perish"
> disease
> has inflicted on their minds.
>
>
>
> In the meantime,
> You are discharging your frustration on the wrong crowd.
>
>
> Instead of complaining about the management of the Journal and its
> supposed "Owners", you should brainstorm on ways of encouraging all
> under-graduate and graduate students to act as reviewers. They should
> learn that they *ARE* qualified to be reviewers. They should learn
> that
> they *are* the "PEERS" that the term "Peer-Review" refers to:
>
>
> It is not "Supervisor-Review"
> It is not "Nobel-Prize-Review"
> It is not "Chosen-One-Review"
> It is not "Friend-of-The-Journal-Editor-Review"
> It is not "Owner-of-The-Journal-Review"
> It is not "Anonymous-Competitor-Review"
>
>
> It is "PEER-Review"
>
>
>
> Definition of "PEER":
>
> One that is of equal standing with another :
> EQUAL; one belonging to the same societal group
> especially based on *age*, *grade*, or *status*
>
>
>
> The "PEERS" of Graduate Students are *OTHER GRADUATE STUDENTS*.
>
>
>
> *EVERY* person that uses ITK *IS* qualified to act as a reviewer
> of the Insight Journal.
>
>
>
> There is no need for being "Friend" of anybody.
> There is no need for being consecrated through some "Holy Process".
> There is no need for belonging to some influence group.
> There is no need for being member of any social circle.
> There should not be a need to be pressured by an associate editor.
>
>
> That is the message that we must pass across the community.
>
> Having 1,200 users in the mailing list, there is no shortage of
> brains for reviewing less than 100 papers.
>
>
>
> Do not make the mistake of thinking
> that the Insight Journal is simply the
> gate for bringing source code into ITK.
>
>
>
> The Insight Journal is the RED PILL that may help our community
> to wake up from THE MATRIX of the "Publish or Perish" stratagem.
>
>
> As a community resource, the *Exercise of participating* in the review
> process is *MORE* important than the act of bringing code into ITK.
>
>
> It is a simple matter of teaching readers to stand on their own feet,
> to judge with their own minds, and to take responsibility for their
> own future.
>
>
>
> "Publish or Perish" was invented by budget managers and administrators
> who didn't wanted, or were incapable of understanding the science they
> were managing. It was an easy trick that made possible for them to
> "count numbers of papers" in an annual report instead of having to
> "read those papers" and try to understand their implications.
>
>
>
> We as a community, are all guilty of nourishing this primitive and
> decadent practice. We still assume that "number of papers" equals
> "productivity", regardless of what the paper content is.
>
>
>
> As dogs in training, the "Publish or Perish" stratagem, educated our
> community members to receive cookies (productivity credits) when they
> bark (publish), no matter what the barking was about. In the "Publish
> or Perish" MATRIX, there are no cookies for the ones who listen to the
> barking (read the publications). There are no cookies for the ones who
> attempt to repeat the barking of others (reproduce publications). Only
> "original barking" is supposed to be worth of cookies.
>
>
>
> The Insight Journal is like a public library. It is there, open for
> everybody. However, we can not force people to go to this library,
> we can not force people to contribute reviews.
>
>
> The challenge we face at this point is to untrain the damage that
> years
> of traditional publishing system has made. Every time that we hear a
> senior researcher telling a junior researcher "You should publish" we
> must jump in alert and examine "WHY" and "HOW" publishing should be
> done.
>
>
>
>
> You are now *an ITK developer*, at this point, you have access to all
> the same resources and information that any other "ITK developer" has.
> You have write access to the CVS repository, access to the mailing
> lists, access to the Wiki, access to the bug tracker. As you can see
> there is no magic aura that suddenly appears, no sparkly dust falling
> down while you walk. It is just one more entry among many other things
> in your to-do list.
>
>
> You can complain about other "ITK developers" not doing enough, but
> that's not going to make the world move any faster. The place where
> you could invest your energy in a positive way is by going to all
> junior researchers around you and letting them know that "Publish or
> Perish" is a lie, and that if they don't take responsibility for the
> quality of work shared in their community, nobody else will. At least
> nobody without an agenda of their own...
>
>
>
>
> Luis
>
>
>
> =======================
> Gaëtan Lehmann wrote:
>> Stephen,
>> Have I said or done something wrong ?
>> I'm writting a review for each new paper I'm able to review -
>> perhaps I'm late of 1 review or 2 - but I'll not submit 3 reviews
>> per paper, and will not submit reviews for my own ones.
>> I'm asking about reviewer associate because their role is to
>> assign some reviewers to a paper, and most of the papers in the
>> IJ are still lacking of reviews - Note that I'm only talking
>> about the contributions to ITK, not about the articles for the
>> MICCAI. I would be pleased to incite potential reviewers to write
>> more reviews, but again, I have seen nothing about the editor
>> associate since your last mail.
>> Alsso, it seem that the ITK developers are not getting that
>> letting a contribution for 6 or 9 months in the insight journal
>> without much activity is like saying
>> "we don't care about your work and the time you spent to write
>> your article".
>> If there can't be more reviewers for the contributions to the
>> insight journal, do not require 3 reviews to integrate it in the
>> toolkit, are stop asking people to post their code to the IJ. If
>> you (developers) really don't care, just keep things like that -
>> that's fine.
>> Some days like this one, I'm really not sure why I'm still using
>> the IJ, and warning their owners about what is wrong - it also
>> look like a huge waste of time
>> Gaetan
>> Le Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:52:17 +0200, Stephen R. Aylward
>> <Stephen.Aylward at kitware.com> a écrit:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Thanks for volunteering to provide more reviews! There are
>>> instructions on the wiki on how to write reviews and contribute
>>> to the IJ.
>>> As each new paper arrives - I am assigning it to reviewers, but
>>> we always welcome additional reviews.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Sent with SnapperMail
>>> www.snappermail.com
>>>
>>> ..... Original Message .......
>>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:34:56 +0200 Gaëtan Lehmann
>>> <gaetan.lehmann at jouy.inra.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:19:37 +0200, Stephen R. Aylward
>>>> <Stephen.Aylward at Kitware.com> a écrit:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for all who have already volunteered to be Associate
>>>>> Editors for
>>>>> the Insight Journal!
>>>>> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/wiki/index.php/IJ-Whos-Who
>>>>>
>>>>> We are still looking for a few more volunteers. You've
>>>>> contributed
>>>>> code to open-source medical image analysis...why not help to
>>>>> spread the
>>>>> news of your contribution and the contributions of others...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> What is the status of this initiative ?
>>>> I've seen nothing about it since this mail, and there is lots of
>>>> contributions in the IJ which again will not get their 3 reviews
>>>> before
>>>> the sept 20 (http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Release_Schedule). If
>>>> things stay
>>>> like that, some of them will be more than one year old without
>>>> getting
>>>> their 3 reviews.
>>>> If things stay like that, lots of contributors will be discouraged
>>>>
>>>> Believe me, I'm a contributor
>>>>
>>>> And what a waste of time.
>>>> If things have been done earlier, some classes can have been
>>>> integrated in
>>>> the toolkit 2 releases ago
>>>>
>>>> Gaetan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Gaëtan Lehmann
>>>> Biologie du Développement et de la Reproduction
>>>> INRA de Jouy-en-Josas (France)
>>>> tel: +33 1 34 65 29 66 fax: 01 34 65 29 09
>>>> http://voxel.jouy.inra.fr
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Insight-users mailing list
> Insight-users at itk.org
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
More information about the Insight-developers
mailing list