14.0401 online publishing

From: by way of Willard McCarty (willard@lists.village.Virginia.EDU)
Date: 10/22/00

  • Next message: by way of Willard McCarty: "14.0403 primitives &c, cognitive connections"

                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 401.
           Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
       [1]   From:    Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>                (40)
             Subject: Re: 14.0394 self-archiving & online publishing
       [2]   From:    "Osher Doctorow" <osher@ix.netcom.com>              (33)
             Subject: Re: 14.0394 self-archiving & online publishing
             Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:28:09 +0100
             From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>
             Subject: Re: 14.0394 self-archiving & online publishing
    Joel Goldfield commented on the perceived lack of "peer review" in Steven
    Harnad's comments as follows:
      > One problem, although much is good in this freeing of research from
      > dissemination barriers, is that there will be more research available,
      > and much will not have been peer reviewed.  We researchers will have
      > more grain to separate from the chaff.  Even for good research, it
      > remains to be seen how many peers are going to be available to provide
      > the desired vetting.  Will free peer reviewing be a growth industry?
    It would be more accurate to say that materials held in preprint servers or
    other electronic corpora will not be subjected to "limited peer review," which
    is the current norm in the humanities. No current vetting system can afford an
    unlimited number of reviewers, either economically or organizationally, so the
    much touted "limited peer review" of the current system is surprising in the
    fact that it works at all, rather than it works well. New methods or topics,
    unfamiliar to the limited number of reviewers, fare less well than submissions
    that follow the hoary adages of the reviewer's generation of scholars.
    Contrast the current system of "limited peer review" with the system of peer
    review that is inherent in the comments by Steven Harnad. Under Harnad's
    system, papers and concepts can be subjected to peer review by all interested
    colleagues and not some limited subset. Greater responsibility for making
    critical judgments will be placed on the readers but what scholar blindly
    accepts findings outside (or inside) their field of expertise because an
    article survived the current system of "limited peer review?" Scholars can
    publically "review" the work of others, something that is not present in the
    present system. With such reviews, scholars can see the reasons why a
    particular work was seen as useful, useless, etc., rather than simply being
    unaware of it altogether.
    We would do well to remember that Willard has on occassion started discussion
    topics on the Humanist list that address the need to teach critical thinking to
    students. If students need to think critically about sources, shouldn't
    scholars think critically about the work of other scholars? As opposed to
    abdicating that responsibility to the current norm of "limited peer review?"
    Patrick Durusau
    Director of Research and Development
    Society of Biblical Literature
             Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:33:21 +0100
             From: "Osher Doctorow" <osher@ix.netcom.com>
             Subject: Re: 14.0394 self-archiving & online publishing
    Willard McCarty is as usual very insightful.   Mathematics and physics and
    engineering are especially competitive areas.  I think that Creative
    Geniuses at some point lose their fear of being scooped, like Willard and
    (if I may humbly say to) me.  It is actually somewhat amusing in mathematics
    and physics.  Here are these people, some of them nice, some of them Old
    Fogies who are veterans in the Rat Race of Do Unto Others Before They Do
    Unto You, suddenly faced with somebody throwing free gold coins from a
    passing carriage on the internet.  What do you do about that?   Probably
    nothing - after all, Royalty found out long ago that the Disloyal Opposition
    could really do nothing but have fits when they did that.  However, some
    competitive physical scientists try grandiose ways to downsize their
    internet Royalist opponents.  I have had poison pen emails from Mathematics
    Professors (including "Goodbye" in the subject heading), "students" who
    suddenly pop up on internet lists from nowhere to side with Old Fogies, long
    tirades on how bad unpeer-reviewed papers are for the whole profession (tell
    it to Beethoven is my usual response, and I mean it in several ways), and
    Grand Old Men of the profession writing to editors demanding my ouster.  The
    Disloyal Opposition discredits themselves by all of this.  They can argue
    that free knowledge dilutes the quality knowledge that black box peer
    reviewing provides (ignoring the fact that what goes into a black box is
    operated on by unknown persons in unknown ways - and I've been too long
    around in Academia to believe otherwise).   Well, so does free air.  Thank
    God for free air.  In fact, the Disloyal Opposition would subject our free
    air to peer review.  The London times would become the London Foggy Peer
    Review, the Daily Telegraph would become th Daily Peer, and I would be
    deprived of Free Speech - which, with Free Air, is worth fighting for, even
    in the fog.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Humanist Discussion Group
    <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>)" <willard@lists.village.virginia.edu>
    To: "Humanist Discussion Group" <humanist@lists.Princeton.EDU>
    Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 11:06 PM
    Subject: 14.0394 self-archiving & online publishing

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/22/00 EDT