Antwort auf: Gesamteindrücke zur (Online-)Tagung

Tyll Zybura

I have a critical comment on the format: To me there seems to be a contradiction between the treatment of the conference contributions as articles to be published and as presentations to be discussed.

Many of the comments I read leading up to the conference treat the articles as final drafts and are essentially editor comments, they address lack of clarity, issues of logic, of phrasing, of expression, and the like. As someone who is not a contributor, I don’t really see the purpose of making such comments part of the conference format (to me they are post-production steps when it comes to finalizing texts for publishing). And if the texts are actually finished and ready to be edited and proofread, what’s the aim of asking participants to make comments on the conceptual, argumentative, or epistemological level? This lack of clarity concerning the ontological status of contributions 😉 made it difficult for me to commit to making more extensive comments, to be honest, I was just confused about the role of the actual conference in the production cycle of these texts.

The “Vorschläge fürs Kommentieren” haven’t really helped me because they read as if they invite comments on texts in an early draft stage (which makes sense to me if there is supposed to be meaningful discussion possibly leading to extensive revision). But they don’t expressly dis-invite editing comments (which also makes sense to me considering that all of the contributions are obviously final drafts). Do you see my problem?