Geert Lovink has called for an end to anonymous peer-review practices for journals and so on, arguing that it is a shady, backroom style of review that no longer fits the 'open' realm of web cultures where opinions are shared openly and freely.
I guess two immediate problems present themselves: 1) that Lovink has put the technology before culture a little too explicitly, as if the emergence of net forms of review simply warrant the restructuring of prior ones, and 2) that these very forms themselves might not actually be conducive to the sorts of considered, detailed review journal article reviews call for - who would want to read the equivalent of 50 snarky, off-the-cuff blog comments when receiving a paper back from a journal?
Then again, I'm highly ignorant about actual processes of peer-review, and whether they're as deceitful as Lovink claims they are.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
(con)juncture was lawson fletcher's thought pile. Now blogging at soundofruins.net
"stay critical or die!" | email | (con)temporary
"stay critical or die!" | email | (con)temporary
Copyright © 2010 (con)juncture | CSS Template.
1 comment:
Hi, at least the blog comments are in the public domain. We can read them. That's not the case with these peer review responses. Not even the author will read them. Often they remain with those in power (to publish, to give grants, fellowships, jobs etc.).
Post a Comment