http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing Scholarly Publishing in the Age of the Internet Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:57:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/6-peer-to-peer-review/#comment-174 David Parry Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:25:06 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/peer-to-peer-review/#comment-174 Yes, I think this is probably another place where we find the humanities particularly conservative. There is a sense that our work should be individually authored a work of “genius” rather than collaborative, which is of course a sort of historical fiction to say the least. Why is it that co-authored pieces are less prestigious? Yes, I think this is probably another place where we find the humanities particularly conservative. There is a sense that our work should be individually authored a work of “genius” rather than collaborative, which is of course a sort of historical fiction to say the least. Why is it that co-authored pieces are less prestigious?

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/6-peer-to-peer-review/#comment-173 Jason Mittell Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:54:22 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/peer-to-peer-review/#comment-173 Agreed as an “either/or” model, but already scholarship gets evaluated through a model of reputation system through citations. The technology of the web would allow this to become more transparent & accessible, supplementing available “high-quality feedback” with some indication of how useful the work is to its readers. Agreed as an “either/or” model, but already scholarship gets evaluated through a model of reputation system through citations. The technology of the web would allow this to become more transparent & accessible, supplementing available “high-quality feedback” with some indication of how useful the work is to its readers.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/6-peer-to-peer-review/#comment-172 James Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:35:34 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/peer-to-peer-review/#comment-172 There’s already a certain level of dishonesty in the single-author humanities article. In the sciences, research assistants, etc. receive some author credit for their contributions. In the humanities, the best we can hope for is an acknowledgment or citation. There’s already a certain level of dishonesty in the single-author humanities article. In the sciences, research assistants, etc. receive some author credit for their contributions. In the humanities, the best we can hope for is an acknowledgment or citation.

]]> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/scholarlypublishing/6-peer-to-peer-review/#comment-171 James Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:32:17 +0000 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarly-publishing-in-the-age-of-the-internet/peer-to-peer-review/#comment-171 Digg and systems like it seem to reply on a large amount of low quality feedback. They also seem subject to manipulation. It seems to me that scholarly peer review or discussion, in any form, needs to reply on a relatively small amount of high quality feedback. As scholars, most of us do work that is of direct interest to a relatively small number of people. Reputation systems like Slashdot or Digg are designed to deal with fairly large communities. They also seem to seek to eliminate the role of dedicated editors, something that I’m not sure scholarly publishing should emulate. Digg and systems like it seem to reply on a large amount of low quality feedback. They also seem subject to manipulation. It seems to me that scholarly peer review or discussion, in any form, needs to reply on a relatively small amount of high quality feedback. As scholars, most of us do work that is of direct interest to a relatively small number of people. Reputation systems like Slashdot or Digg are designed to deal with fairly large communities. They also seem to seek to eliminate the role of dedicated editors, something that I’m not sure scholarly publishing should emulate.

]]>