@alberto and All, @Richard and I have done a lot of editing on the whole document, so you may want to consider incorporating our edits in addition to transferring “our” section. I think we achieved the level of understanding that prompted us to suggest a few things (perhaps too audacious) but certainly we also thought about the readability for a more “general” audience.
1 Like
Absolutely, and thanks for this.
1 Like
Dear All, Richard and I hope that “our” section makes sense to you also. Please let us know. We are not sure, for example, if its size is proper. We were aware of the tight space limitations, so some thoughts may be too sketchy. Also, one you have the manuscript revised, we will need to insert our bibliographic sources. It is really fun and I think we are up to something! J
I think we have the space to correct that.
Noted. Today I started a pass that is going to be quite deep – for example, I did a major reorganization of section 1 (now much shorter) and 2 (used to be empty, has now most of the references and lineage that used to be in 1. I also found a missing piece in 3.
My advice is: don’t even look at this until I am done with this pass. The one exception is @bpinaud, who is working independently of the paper’s text. I plan to be ready by the end of the week.
Indeed 
But do you think it needs it?
I’ll tell you when I’m done!
1 Like
Ok, I am done. I am attaching a draft PDF to the end of this post.
Notes:
- General re-organization, especially of section 1 (what are we doing? why is it important?) and 2 (lineage, previously empty).
- Section 6.2 is great, thanks Jan and Richard! Very innovative.
- Thank you @Richard for the many improvements to the English!
- Used footnotes to clarify some basic netsci concepts (nodes, edges, connected components).
- Used Google Scholar to make a guess at the new references, but might have been off (some classics show up as recent editions, etc.). Could you please check the bibliography, @Jan and Richard?
- Simplified the description of the CCN.
- Word count: 5,870.
To do:
- Read the draft! And I propose we take an hour to discuss it, ask each other questions, etc. Monday, for example. Agree? Shall I create a Zoom link?
Meanwhile, we continue to improve the draft.
- Please use the Overleaf project from now on!
- Go over the comments, most by me, some by Jan, and react as appropriate.
- Section 2 still needs a paragraph from Jan and Richard to help situate the paper within the socio/anthro literature, including that cited in section 6.2.
- We still need the computation of Jaccard indices by @bpinaud.
- We also need to re-export the pictures. @melancon, Bruno, how do you want them to look? Shall I simply export from Bruno’s Google Sheet?
- The node-link diagrams of Figure 5 are very basic. Guy, Bruno, do you want to take charge of making them look better?
- I propose a final, short section called “conclusions”. All methods are valid, they can be used for different purposes.
- Bruno, I would also ask you if you can put the whole thing onto the appropriate Sage Latex template.
- We need to add the acknowledgements (EU money, eh).
- I don’t see how a review of this can be double blind. Just by the data used people will know it’s us. If we put the pre-print on Zenodo or ar.xiv, will this lead to automatic rejection by the journal?
Ethnography_Kitchen_paper.pdf (12.5 MB)
1 Like
WOW! Many thanks Alberto. I will work on this over the weekend. I take it that our short characterizations of the four relevant theoretical traditions are sufficient. Since I see Hannertz in your biblio, I may add a sentence or two about him an his wonderful book on Cultural Complexity. Observe that the subtitle is Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning
As for the double blind review - I know of many situations when working papers and stuff previously known form the Internet, was reviewed.
I “understand” it – meaning that your language is clear. However, I myself am not competent to cross-check your claims against the invoked literature. The joys of interdisciplinarity, eh?
I did leave a question there. Where you write (slight rephrasing, this is now already announced in section 1 because it is a precious part of the paper:
[…] we highlight the affinity of each of the four techniques with a prominent method of analysis associated in turn with an identifiable school of thought in sociology or anthropology. Our objective is to contribute to the rigor and transparency of the methodological choices of researchers when dealing with large ethnographic corpora.
My question is:
Are we sure about this formulation? For example, “uncovering the structure of culture (discourse or thought)” does not seem to be a method, but rather a research interest.
But I may be wrong, and your formulation intuitive to the readers of Ethnography.
The world adapts, eh. Good.
The policy of the Editorial Boards I am on is that we would not consider a submission that is already in the public domain. Only if the online version was a very preliminary version might we consider the newer submission - but it would need to contain data/results/analysis not included in the online version. I would not risk it.
Ok, but then we need a major decision. The EU rightly mandates open access for publications from research it funds. So, the possibilities are:
- Publish on a repository like Zenodo (green OA), no peer review. Low impact.
- Publish on an OA journal (gold OA). Ethnography has an OA track, as I recall, but we need to pay OA fee (3,000 USD – this is called SAGE Choice). Which is super bad, not because we don’t have the money in POPREBEL, but because it feeds the horribly exploitative business model of academic journals.
- Publish on a non-OA journal, but one that does have a (partial) green OA policy in place. Sage’s guidelines on green OA are here. As I understand them, we need to first submit, then go through the peer review process. When the paper gest accepted, only then we can share the manuscript (but not the journal-formatted version) on a repository. So, in principle we could do this with Ethnography.
In terms of my own funding (not from POPREBEL, but from another project that ends at the end of 2021), I think I’m good as long as I can show a submission to a journal in 2021, even if there is no publication.
So, my preference is for 3, but I will go with that people think best.
Yes, 3 is the best option. The EC is happy with green Open Access.
1 Like
@alberto @Richard and the team: I also think the third option is the best. I apologize for not working on the piece over the weekend. Two (two!) pieces in progress returned top me on Friday for further revisions and edits! I almost done with them but now have to turn my attention to grading and writing a piece that is due on 17 January. Not to mention a memo that I need to compose for our post-review work. So, I will get to it ASAP, but there may be a delay (not too long). I spotted a few places in the text where I would like to do some editing. Ciao.
We go for third option then.
Meanwhile, I can announce that we have a full draft. 
Word count stands at around 6,300 words, so comfortable. Good work everyone!
@Jan, it’s good that you did not work on it over the weekend, because now you can do so on a complete draft.
- @bpinaud has finished the computation of the codes/edges filtered in by each technique for each datasets.
- I used his results to finish section 6.3.
- I also penned a conclusions section (7).
In theory, this is now complete and submittable. In practice, we all need to re-read and polish before we do that. Additionally, @melancon has written a note suggesting possible (and probably better) alternatives to the Jaccard index for quantitatively comparing reduction techniques, so we need to give that some thinking too.
To do:
- read, reflect, go through the comments on Overleaf, propose changes.
- re-export the figures to uniformize their layout and appearance.
- make decisions on the node-link visualizations of figure 5: are they good enough?
- move our LaTEX file to the SAGE LaTEX template on Overleaf (why, oh why, did we not see this before?). I would ask that @melancon takes care of this, he is faster with LaTEX (Bruno has little time this week).
- Add the acknowledgements (mandatory since @Richard, Jan and I are EC-funded).
- Anonymize the manuscript (guidelines). This may be more than a 30-mins business if we are to anonymize datasets.
If you want to talk, I am available this week.
I’m reading the new version at the moment. Nearly done! It’s looking really good. Couldn’t work out how to use Track Changes, so edited directly in the text - very small changes.
1 Like
Track changes is a premium feature, I do not have that.
Small changes are best directly introduced anyway.
@Richard , can I ask for your opinion on the paper’s “architecture” (sections 1 and 2)? Are we making a convincing case that we are tackling a relevant problem? Are we doing a decent job of placing it in the context of the debate? This stuff is always tricky with interdisciplinary work. I mean, look at our bibliography: we have both Gramsci and Nature Machine Intelligence. Most people will not even perceive a debate 
.
LaTEX stuff almost done.
Be careful. the sage class does not add numbers to the sections. So, at least line 38 should be rewritten.
1 Like
I have also changed all \cite to \citep to add the parenthesis. Please check if some parenthesis should be removed.
1 Like
Thanks Bruno!
I went through it, should be OK.
Also should be OK.