Nicole/ I've thought about these issues for quite some time ... I strongly believe that the scholarly communication/publishing process is undergoing a major transformation ... Do Visit My Scholarship 2.0 blog [ http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/ ] Items of Interest Include:
Establishing a Research Agenda for Scholarly Communication
Show Me The Data! Show Me The Data! Show Me The Data!
Economics: A Public Peer Reviewed e-Journal
ELPUB2008: Open Scholarship: Authority, Community and Sustainability in the Age of Web 2.0
MediaCommons: A Digital Scholarly Network
" ... The Times They Are A-Changin'"
Horizon Report 2007: New Scholarship and Emerging Forms of Publication
LAMPSS: Lots of Alternative Models Provide Sensible Solutions. I: Open Peer Review
Ideal Speech Situation
Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet
Valuing Non-Traditional Vehicles of Scholarship
Electronic Literature Organization
The Promise of Authority in Social Scholarship
Digital Scholarship in the Tenure, Promotion, and Review Process
Report of the MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion
Disruptive Scholarship DisruptiveScholarshipModel
The Last Two Are Mine And Emphasize Scholarship as Conversation (within a Wiki environment). (In IMHO The Wiki Can Be Configured As The Ideal Open Access Model) Speaking of Ideal, I believe that the 'Ideal Speech Situation" posting (noted above) will also be of interest as well. Regards, /Gerry Gerry McKiernan Associate Professor Science and Technology Librarian Iowa State University Library Ames IA 50011 gerrymck@iastate.edu There is Nothing More Powerful Than An Idea Whose Time Has Come Victor Hugo [ http://www.blogger.com/profile/09093368136660604490 ] Iowa: Where the Tall Corn Flows and the (North)West Wind Blows ... [ http://www.alternativeenergyblogs.blogspot.com/ ] c: AIR-L
Nicole Ellison <> 2/10/2008 3:13 PM >>> I have a question that ties together two recent issues on this thread: peer review and open access. My personal stance: I'd like to see academic research become more freely available online while maintaining peer review. Assuming some of you share these goals, how do we reconcile the common act of putting early-stage work online, either as blog posts/talk cribs (like danah) or as full papers, while maintaining blind peer review? A personal anecdote: Recently I reviewed a paper for a top-tier academic journal and Googled one of the citations to find out more about it. To my surprise I found a copy of the paper I was reviewing, with full authorship information and citation info that claimed it was "In press" at the journal! This is an extreme case, but it seems to me that as more work comes online (e.g. through blog posts or full papers) before the peer-review process is completed, the chance that this work will be reviewed blindly are lessoned.
Any thoughts on what practices (for authors, editors, and reviewers) make most sense for balancing the benefits of circulating ideas and work early vs. the goal of maintaining blind review (or what's left of it)? Thanks, Nicole * * * Nicole Ellison, PhD nellison@msu.edu _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/