Also - it might not be possible or practical not to do any gatekeeping considering our goals.

The hand-wringing about “gate-keepers” that I see elsewhere in the discussion frankly makes no sense to me. It’s the kind of self-flagellation that makes academics unappealing. As long as we live in a fallen world of limited attention spans and finite human resources there will always be gate-keepers. To think the internet–cyberspace, the Web–makes it otherwise is not only naive, but reckless.

That doesn’t mean one can’t intervene in existing practices, and do so with greater or lesser efficacy. That doesn’t mean ideas can’t be improved. But at some point you have to start intervening. The above principles point the way forward.

This idea of metrics is most intriguing, and I’m sure it was discussed a great deal in NJ, and will be discussed a great deal for a while to come. The key factor with all of it is transparency, so that whatever the modes and principles are, they will be made clear to all, at all times. This is critically important if one of the goals of the entire MC project is to change how scholarship is presented and assessed.

Accordingly, I think there needs to be a balance between various factors. The peer review process shouldn’t only function on one “channel” (as Jason and Avi discuss), but similarly it shouldn’t be too complex as well. It needs to be relatively easy not only to do, but to understand when presented to non MC-ers (cf. Kathleen’s pt. #4). While racking up “publications” isn’t the primary goal of MC, I think that tenure track scholars should certainly use their work here and elsewhere in their portfolios, and that senior faculty, deans, and T&P committees should understand how it all functions.

We’ve had a bit of this discussion at the Meadows School here at SMU already, and while our dean is actively engaged in incorporating new technologies and new modes of assessment, successful MC (or MC-ish) endeavors out there will help speed these modes to wider acceptance, here and everywhere.

To further clarify point #8, while authors can select the peer groups and types of feedback/review they would like for their work, any member of MediaCommons (membership in the community being a different designation from peer) can respond to any work available on the site. The peer selection mechanism is intended to help steer certain members toward a work and would also function as a filter (possibly by color coding comments from peers and members differently) to help the author determine how to engage with different respondants (i.e., if a piece receive substantial commenting, the author could request only to see comments from select peer groups to help manage the work flow. As a default, however, all comments from all members would appear upon first coming to the work.

Also, while the editorial board would use the author’s peer selections as a gage for soliciting particular reviewers, peer identification would also be part of the membership process for MediaCommons. In other words, upon joining the community, members would select the peer groups to which they wish to belong (peer groups might include professional credentialing and/or interest groups; being able to select “academic” might be tied to providing a university e-mail account or some such mechanism, but being able to identify as having an interest in “fan fiction” might be open to anyone regardless of professional credentials). In this manner, when an author selects the peer groups they would like feedback from, an e-mail would automatically be generated to all members who selected that particular peer grouping alerting them to the project.

Finally, while all members would have access to a “greenhouse” for germinating ideas pre-”ready for publication”, and these spaces would be networked through trackback and tagging options to facilitate dialogue between community members, these work spaces would also be filtered to the MediaCommons home page based on levels of activity, community interest, scholarly, pedagogical, or outreach value (again based on community voting) and by editorial board stewardship seeking to promote particular projects that have not gotten sufficient attention. In other words, while the Greenhouse is tucked away in the backyard, there will be mechanisms for continually providing members with snapshots of the polination process.

MediaCommons will offer a community space for projects in any stage of development. Any member of MediaCommons can get their own page to serve as a “greenhouse” to develop ideas and build a community of people engaged in the process of germinating projects. Through the use of technologies like tagging & trackbacks, and through the interpersonal networks facilitated by the editorial board, MediaCommons projects can be disseminated, promoted, and workshopped at any stage of the development process, not just in a “ready for publication” stage.

MediaCommons is committed to make the review process timely as well as transparent. Thus editors will work to solicit reviews quickly and encourage members to respond to new submissions in a timeframe more in keeping with the digital world, not the print model.

And to clarify point 8 above: essentially, authors can designate what peer communities a project is trying to reach, and editors will invite review from those communities. This request is open and transparent, so readers (including P&T committees) can see who authors are seeking to address, and how those communities respond.