Comments on: traditional peer review and its defenses 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 By: Nick Mirzoeff http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/one/traditional-peer-review-and-its-defenses/#comment-924 Nick Mirzoeff Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:48:01 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/?page_id=52#comment-924 Not to mention blog and other web publishing! Not to mention blog and other web publishing!

]]> By: Paul F. Gehl http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/one/traditional-peer-review-and-its-defenses/#comment-841 Paul F. Gehl Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:38:43 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/?page_id=52#comment-841 Bingo. This last sentence about rationalization is an elegant throwaway. At the very least michalroy is right that you need to emphasize how wrongheaded and irresponsible such responses are. Power and prestige can only be well defended --assuming they deserve it-- if they can take the heat of criticism and come up with alternative forms of validation. Bingo. This last sentence about rationalization is an elegant throwaway. At the very least michalroy is right that you need to emphasize how wrongheaded and irresponsible such responses are. Power and prestige can only be well defended –assuming they deserve it– if they can take the heat of criticism and come up with alternative forms of validation.

]]> By: michaelroy http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/one/traditional-peer-review-and-its-defenses/#comment-268 michaelroy Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:09:24 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/?page_id=52#comment-268 Again, i would say that turning up the volume is in order. When you conclude "This can, of course, be rationalized as the inevitable, unenviable fate of genius in a world of mediocrity" , it might also be worth noting that obsolescence has its costs, namely that the maintenance funds often get redirected to the non-obsolete. I worry that you aren't hitting the high notes about just exactly what is at stake, which is more than the future of the book, but really the future of educational institutions. Again, i would say that turning up the volume is in order. When you conclude “This can, of course, be rationalized as the inevitable, unenviable fate of genius in a world of mediocrity” , it might also be worth noting that obsolescence has its costs, namely that the maintenance funds often get redirected to the non-obsolete. I worry that you aren’t hitting the high notes about just exactly what is at stake, which is more than the future of the book, but really the future of educational institutions.

]]> By: Maria Bustillos http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/one/traditional-peer-review-and-its-defenses/#comment-164 Maria Bustillos Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:01:52 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/?page_id=52#comment-164 "One might [...] invoke the concept of prematurity here--and see the nineteenth-century observations of Goethe, Herschel, Weir Mitchell, Tourette, and Verrey as having come before their times, so that they could not be integrated into contemporary conceptions.  Gunther Stent, writing about 'prematurity' in scientific discovery, says, 'A discovery is premature if its implications cannot be connected by a series of simple logical steps to canonical, or generally accepted, knowledge.'  He discusses this in relation to the classical case of Mendel, and the lesser known but fascinating case of Oswald Avery (who discovered DNA in 1944--a discovery totally overlooked at the time, because of a lack of knowledge that would have enabled scientists to appreciate its importance."  (Oliver Sacks, 'Scotoma, Neglect and Forgetting in Science,' collected in <em>Hidden Histories of Science</em>, NYRB 1995.)  As I read your book, what is constantly occurring to me is that opening up scholarly work to a wider field of "peers," if this were gone about in the right way, could do much to eliminate canonical bias and bring new ideas to light way faster and more efficiently.  Really exciting to think about. “One might [...] invoke the concept of prematurity here–and see the nineteenth-century observations of Goethe, Herschel, Weir Mitchell, Tourette, and Verrey as having come before their times, so that they could not be integrated into contemporary conceptions.  Gunther Stent, writing about ‘prematurity’ in scientific discovery, says, ‘A discovery is premature if its implications cannot be connected by a series of simple logical steps to canonical, or generally accepted, knowledge.’  He discusses this in relation to the classical case of Mendel, and the lesser known but fascinating case of Oswald Avery (who discovered DNA in 1944–a discovery totally overlooked at the time, because of a lack of knowledge that would have enabled scientists to appreciate its importance.”  (Oliver Sacks, ‘Scotoma, Neglect and Forgetting in Science,’ collected in Hidden Histories of Science, NYRB 1995.) 

As I read your book, what is constantly occurring to me is that opening up scholarly work to a wider field of “peers,” if this were gone about in the right way, could do much to eliminate canonical bias and bring new ideas to light way faster and more efficiently.  Really exciting to think about.

]]> By: David Parry http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/one/traditional-peer-review-and-its-defenses/#comment-19 David Parry Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:13:04 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/?page_id=52#comment-19 Ironically this is perhaps descriptive of the current state of academic writing and publishing. Ironically this is perhaps descriptive of the current state of academic writing and publishing.

]]>