3 ms·

I think it's better to present simultaneously, but give the authors several rounds of drafting against each other, so they can update responses into their main

I think it's better to present simultaneously, but give the authors several rounds of drafting against each other, so they can update responses into their main body (similar to how supreme court opinions are authored and released). You'd need a really strong editor to be in charge of the review/revision/back-and-forth process, so they could cut out shenanigans like an author withholding their strongest argument, only to include it in their final version. I'd probably have a rule that no new arguments could be introduced into an article, other than as a direct response to anything _new_ that the opponent author included in their prior revision.

Avicebron 2y ago
not sure I'm familiar with supreme court opinions, but are those drafts public? edit because parent edited to talk about editor :): I think there needs to be transparency at the editorial level then, if the editor is making decisions they can write a reasoning behind each one and make it public.
- ncallaway 2y ago
  > not sure I'm familiar with supreme court opinions, but are those drafts public? No, they're infamously secretive. I think far too secretive, and that's a part that I don't think needs to be emulated. While I do think there's value in having the drafting process "out of the public view" for an op ed, I'd agree in transparency after the fact. I could see just publishing all the revisions, editors notes, etc online alongside the actual final pieces.
  - Avicebron 2y ago
    for debate's sake, I'm genuinely curious, if there are "out of public view" drafting/editing how can it be hardened against building a meta-narrative by making sure the two opinion pieces aren't choreographed to make A or B look bad?
    - ncallaway 2y ago
      I think the only way it can truly be managed is by having the author of each side be a trusted and respected figure in their community. I think publishing the full drafts, editors notes, and revisions along with the piece would do a lot to make visible any deliberate efforts to frustrate one side. I don't think the "out of public view" drafting makes a big difference around this. I actually think making the drafting and revision process public during the drafting would have more corrosive effects on the process. In that one side can push and set a narrative without the other side having opportunity to respond. Anyway, I don't think any editorial system can be fully hardened against the editor leaving imprints of their viewpoints on the piece, but I think this approach would be significantly more transparent than the current state of play.

Avicebron 2y ago

not sure I'm familiar with supreme court opinions, but are those drafts public? edit because parent edited to talk about editor :): I think there needs to be transparency at the editorial level then, if the editor is making decisions they can write a reasoning behind each one and make it public.

ncallaway 2y ago
> not sure I'm familiar with supreme court opinions, but are those drafts public? No, they're infamously secretive. I think far too secretive, and that's a part that I don't think needs to be emulated. While I do think there's value in having the drafting process "out of the public view" for an op ed, I'd agree in transparency after the fact. I could see just publishing all the revisions, editors notes, etc online alongside the actual final pieces.
- Avicebron 2y ago
  for debate's sake, I'm genuinely curious, if there are "out of public view" drafting/editing how can it be hardened against building a meta-narrative by making sure the two opinion pieces aren't choreographed to make A or B look bad?
  - ncallaway 2y ago
    I think the only way it can truly be managed is by having the author of each side be a trusted and respected figure in their community. I think publishing the full drafts, editors notes, and revisions along with the piece would do a lot to make visible any deliberate efforts to frustrate one side. I don't think the "out of public view" drafting makes a big difference around this. I actually think making the drafting and revision process public during the drafting would have more corrosive effects on the process. In that one side can push and set a narrative without the other side having opportunity to respond. Anyway, I don't think any editorial system can be fully hardened against the editor leaving imprints of their viewpoints on the piece, but I think this approach would be significantly more transparent than the current state of play.