http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:10:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/one/the-future-of-peer-review/#comment-828 Katherine Rowe Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:26:48 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/?page_id=79#comment-828 Shakespeare Quarterly is currently experimenting with an open review process on this site (many thanks to the MediaCommons team). This process applies to a special issue on "Shakespeare and New Media." So far as I have been able to determine this is the first traditional, high-profile humanities journal to undertake such an experiment. Our model is partly informed by KF's discussions of earlier experiments in this chapter. SQ's traditional review process has a very rigorous upfront assessment of whether a submission is of "refereeable quality". The editorial team noted that such a rigorous pre-screening process has been important to the success of arXiv's refereeing mechanisms and has retained it in this open review experiment. We also looked carefully at the Nature experiment and KF's analysis of it here, and therefore created separate workflows where for submissions undergoing open review, reviewers comments will bear on SQ's editorial decision on whether or not to publish any given paper. Shakespeare Quarterly is currently experimenting with an open review process on this site (many thanks to the MediaCommons team). This process applies to a special issue on “Shakespeare and New Media.” So far as I have been able to determine this is the first traditional, high-profile humanities journal to undertake such an experiment. Our model is partly informed by KF’s discussions of earlier experiments in this chapter. SQ’s traditional review process has a very rigorous upfront assessment of whether a submission is of “refereeable quality”. The editorial team noted that such a rigorous pre-screening process has been important to the success of arXiv’s refereeing mechanisms and has retained it in this open review experiment. We also looked carefully at the Nature experiment and KF’s analysis of it here, and therefore created separate workflows where for submissions undergoing open review, reviewers comments will bear on SQ’s editorial decision on whether or not to publish any given paper.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/one/the-future-of-peer-review/#comment-45 Kathleen Fitzpatrick Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:40:29 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/?page_id=79#comment-45 Actually, now that I've thought about it, I'd point to the experimental review process in place at <a href="http://www.electronicbookreview.com/" rel="nofollow"><em>electronic book review</em></a> -- but I'm not sure that system quite does what I'm after, either.  The reviews are closed rather than open, as far as I can tell, and if I'm remembering correctly they're also anonymous.  (I say "if I'm remembering correctly" because my login stopped working several months ago and though I wrote to try to have it fixed I never got a response.)  So there is that example, but I'm not sure how far it's really going toward open review. Actually, now that I’ve thought about it, I’d point to the experimental review process in place at electronic book review — but I’m not sure that system quite does what I’m after, either.  The reviews are closed rather than open, as far as I can tell, and if I’m remembering correctly they’re also anonymous.  (I say “if I’m remembering correctly” because my login stopped working several months ago and though I wrote to try to have it fixed I never got a response.)  So there is that example, but I’m not sure how far it’s really going toward open review.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/one/the-future-of-peer-review/#comment-27 Kathleen Fitzpatrick Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:16:14 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/?page_id=79#comment-27 That's it, as far as I know; I'll be interested to hear if other folks have examples they can point us toward. That’s it, as far as I know; I’ll be interested to hear if other folks have examples they can point us toward.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/one/the-future-of-peer-review/#comment-21 David Parry Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:35:32 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/?page_id=79#comment-21 Are there any humanities based examples of this (outside of individual endeavors like Noah's)? The only example I know of is <a href="http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/CSeARCH.HTM" title="CSearch" rel="nofollow">CSearch</a>, which is more an open access archive, rather than a peer review system. Are there any humanities based examples of this (outside of individual endeavors like Noah’s)? The only example I know of is CSearch, which is more an open access archive, rather than a peer review system.

]]>