SDR Reformatting, Comment#3

[Arlen Wolpert]

On March 10 I submitted a plan to the SD Discussion
Group for reformatting the System Dynamics Review. It is
shown at the end of this email[clipped]. On March 20 I made some
additional comments on why a reformatted SDR would make
our journal into a more effective communication tool. Now let
me give one example of how this reformatting plan would work:
Khalid Saeed has been developing an important body
of work on the dynamics of economic growth and political
instability in developing countries over the past 15 years. This
work is very little known, yet it is perhaps one of the most
important areas of study.
The editor of SDR would invite Prof. Saeed to write
a target article on his most recent model in this area with full
modeling detail together with the insights that he and his
associates are drawing from their work. When this target
article has been received, the editor would send requests for a
critique from other system dynamicists who have published in
this area, such as Wolstenholme, Mandal, Paraymo,
Thirumurthy, Yamamura,J.M.Richardson, Mashayekhi, Bala,
Tasrif. (I have probably left out important modelers in this list.)
Requests for critique would also be sent to some high officials
in governments and agencies associated with economic
development, including the IMF and the World Bank. Requests
would also be sent to responsible key political commentators
from both North and South, both left and right.
All correspondance would be carried on through
email to cut down on editorial work. Money would be
supplied for additional editorial staff.
The key questions before us are: Are we ready to
increase communication, dynamism, and activity in system
dynamics and at the same time bear the pressure of the ensuing
controversy resulting from our "politically incorrect " journal?
Do we have to wait patiently 20 to 50 years, while people are
being educated in system dynamicists and while the world
disintegrates before our eyes, before taking action?



Arlen Wolpert
Independent Scholar
411 Franklin Street, Apt. 1008
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
Telephone: 617-547-6994
email: awolpert@world.std.com

[GR383@albnyvms.Bitnet (George Ri]

I have read with interest the various suggestions made about improving our
scholarly communication in the System Dynamics Review.

We have tried in the past to generate discussions in the pages of the
Review (see, e.g., the article and commentaries on modeling scientific
revolutions, and also Maloneys challenging note on "essential tension" in
the field). Such discussions and commentaries are not easy to generate --
probably because academics do not get tenure and promotions for writing
commentaries, and consultants and other practitioners dont have the time
or rewards either.

I believe that restricting the way articles appear in our journal is not
wise -- I would favor a very rich mix of articles in the System Dynamics
Review, including insightful reports of applications and implementation
efforts, research reports, methodological advances, and scholarly debate.
Restricting publication to only those articles that fit a certain mold
could further shrink the flow of high quality submissions, without a clear
indication of the net benefit to the field.

There is nothing that currently prevents Wolperts suggestions from being
done for a given article -- assemble the team of authors and commentators
and produce high quality manuscripts and send them into the review process.
Im sure Graham Winch and the editorial board would welcome such
stimulating fare.

What many have said before about the growth and acceptance of work in the
field still seems true to me: Pick significant problems; work on them in
full knowledge and acknowledgement of the good work of others (in and out
of our field); produce insightful work; write it up well; publish and/or
consult widely; and try hard to learn from responsible criticism. Im
absolutely convinced that good work will be our best force for growth and
acceptance.

And we must realize that there is very good work going on -- consultancies
are growing, our best academic work is publishable in very high quality
outlets (e.g., Management Science, Interfaces, and the like), and our best
practitioners are in demand.

Id suggest the best way to improve our scholarly communication in the
System Dynamics Review and elsewhere is simply to do great work and
communicate it well -- with or without commentary. Lets keep the
restraint only on the quality dimension, not on an abstract form of
discourse.

...George Richardson

.............................................................................
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy GR383@Albnyvms.bitnet
State University of New York at Albany 518-442-3859 (fax:442-3398)
.............................................................................

["Prof. Khalid Saeed"]

I wish to add a word to a very fine summarizing done by George on the
subject. I would perhaps be repeating what I have said earlier whenever
the question of stepping up the effort to sell SD has been brought up.

Good products sell themselves and organiztions creating sound production
prosper. Jay Forrester pointed this out convincingly in his market growth
model. Sales effort without sound production might only increase
expectations which cannot be me. Let us put our resources into quality
production.

Khalid Saeed
saeed@ait.ac.th