open-access - a practical question
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
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/
The discussion regarding open access has been going on for many years and is, in many ways, responsible for the rise of the open access journals that now exist through a variety of vehicles and venues. The entire battle over use of these for pub/perish purposes, costs for review and the whole enchilada has been worried to the littlest and most trivial detail and the industry has moved- but moved slowly. Google open access and trace the work of Peter Suber and others and the Budapest Open Access Initiative BOAI and the blogs, newsletters and mailserves supporting this arena This is the AIR group- more IR please thank you tom tom abeles _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
Tom, Open access journals ARE available online. How much more IR would you like to have? Jarek
From: tabeles@hotmail.com> To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; nellison@msu.edu> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:55:47 -0600> Subject: Re: [Air-L] open-access - a practical question> > > The discussion regarding open access has been going on for many years> and is, in many ways, responsible for the rise of the open access> journals that now exist through a variety of vehicles and venues. The> entire battle over use of these for pub/perish purposes, costs for> review and the whole enchilada has been worried to the littlest and> most trivial detail and the industry has moved- but moved slowly.> Google open access and trace the work of Peter Suber and others and the> Budapest Open Access Initiative BOAI and the blogs, newsletters and> mailserves supporting this arena> > This is the AIR group- more IR please> > thank you> > tom> > tom abeles> > _________________________________________________________________> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power.> http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan> _______________________________________________> 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/
Nicole, On Feb 10, 2008 4:13 PM, Nicole Ellison <nellison@msu.edu> wrote: [...]
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? [...]
We don't. At least in our area, I think double-blind refereeing has a pretty short future. There is a question as to what degree something is really blind anyway. Even without resorting to Google, some large proportion of the papers I see as a referee are familiar enough in style or topic that I can guess who it is (or at least who the authors spend a lot of time with!). This is even easier with authors who are addicted to self-citation. Even if I haven't seen the paper presented at a conference, blogged, or an earlier piece of the research published, there is a good chance that I could guess the author if I really wanted to. Maybe this is why JASIST and some conferences use single-blind refereeing? Alex -- -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //
participants (5)
-
Alex Halavais -
Gerry Mckiernan -
J. J. -
Nicole Ellison -
tom abeles