Open reviewing process

For review - Gumede-Mellett: Forming a ‘We’ through a good-quality conversation

Picture of Liz Campbell
Re: For review - Gumede-Mellett: Forming a ‘We’ through a good-quality conversation
by Liz Campbell - Monday, 15 April 2019, 1:30 AM

Hello Jerome and Peter,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and need to let it sit with me for a few days before I read it again and provide more feedback.

I have highlighted a few sections in your paper (see attached) that I think need more detail, re-wording, and/or clarification. I also highlighted a few minor errors.

I think what is unique and significant is that you made the collaboration process more explicit--this is very valuable and you provide a living example of I/We. I especially appreciated when you added excerpts from your dialogue to support your claims. As I was reading the dialogue, I felt invited into the process and was able to formulate my own ideas about the exchange. There was also an energy in the dialogue that enhances your paper. Perhaps more excerpts would improve the paper and capture more of the essence of your process (this way you are showing the reader not just telling the reader). 

I wonder if your wise decision to narrow your focus should be revisited? Could you or should you do even more focusing/narrowing of your topic? Are you still trying to do too much? Should this maybe become a three-part paper (one a month)?

Again, I look forward to another read and will provide more feedback then. I just thought I'd share my first impression.

Love, hope, and joy,


Re: For review - Gumede-Mellett: Forming a ‘We’ through a good-quality conversation
by Peter Mellett - Wednesday, 17 April 2019, 11:10 AM

Many thanks for your swift response Liz. Like you, I need to 'sit with it for a few days' before responding. Also, the conversation will be between the reviewers and two authors - Jerome and I will need to 'compare notes' before responding, even though we might feel that we have sufficient experience of each other from developing this paper to be able to speak for each other. I shall contact him now for his thoughts and then engage in some 'respectful editing' to start to address the points that you have raised.

We have been labouring under a huge restriction - the word count - so adding a large chunk of new material will require the removal of a corresponding chunk. As you say, there is sufficient subject-matter here for a whole series of papers. The material we generated that is not part of this paper did, however, contribute greatly to the process through which we formed our 'We'. It is necessary in this paper to give glimpses of these areas but there is not the space to set forth all that we covered. In the end, is there sufficient here for a reader to believe the claim in the title?

More later - Pete