RSS
Academic Journals Seeing Benefits In More Open Peer Review
from the freedom-is-powerful dept
We recently discussed the idea of much more open, online-based peer review processes. In the ensuing discussion some claimed that such things might work for subject areas like math, where concepts could be reviewed and tested by others, but might not work as well in other areas. However, a recent experiment by the Shakespeare Quarterly to experiment with a more open, online peer review system apparently worked quite nicely:
Mixing traditional and new methods, the journal posted online four essays not yet accepted for publication, and a core group of experts -- what Ms. Rowe called "our crowd sourcing" -- were invited to post their signed comments on the Web site MediaCommons, a scholarly digital network. Others could add their thoughts as well, after registering with their own names. In the end 41 people made more than 350 comments, many of which elicited responses from the authors. The revised essays were then reviewed by the quarterly's editors, who made the final decision to include them in the printed journal, due out Sept. 17.Even one of the authors who was quite skeptical of the program as "entirely won over" by the end, noting that the comments were "more extensive and more insightful" than he was used to receiving on his works.
6 Comments | Leave a Comment..
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Is Verizon Wireless Violating Its Promise To Be Open By Blocking Google Wallet?
- Wikipedia Explains, In Great Detail, How Even An Updated SOPA Hurts The Web & Wikipedia
- Interesting Ideas: Can You Peer Review The Entire Internet, Sentence By Sentence
- The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
- Fitbit Temporarily Turns Its Users Into Exhibitionists
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
academic peer review
Why? Because nobody wants the work of comprehending novelty. Our most foresightful works are published, if at all, in peripheral journals. The birth of radio astronomy is a good example. Our most advanced thinkers can not be published at all. Leonardo was forced to self-publish his folios, which went unrecognized as anything but pretty pictures for more than 500 years.
So, no. Do not count on peer-review to discover anything whatsoever. Instead, wait for all the old men to die upon their golden thrones, then we will have progress, maybe. One cannot climb up upon the shoulders of giant imbeciles without sticking one's buttocks into the faces of our recognized scientific greats. So long as money funds science and science pays a living wage, airheads will get those jobs. Open an area of inquiry and some nit-wit thumpkin will apply for a fraudulent patent or copyright for it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: academic peer review
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: academic peer review
Renewal will guarantee that next generations will have different point of views of the current ones and that is for better or for worst.
The mechanics of social interactions will forge new groups of thought that will focuses on the maladies of their current system and naturally try to fix things, that can change things in unexpected ways.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical
Someone has to find it and be interested in it enough to spend the time. With a ton of options, I see many being neglected especially in the more obscure fields of study.
The issues are not insurmountable, but they seem to be frequently ignored or glossed over.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Skeptical
If only we had some way of contacting or connecting with these people.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Skeptical
If only we had some way of contacting or connecting with these people.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment