[WEB4LIB] RE: Online peer-review publishing and post-peer review

[latham1]

Why would moderation be required?  I know academia can get a bit testy, but in 
this instance a moderator could only function as a censor ... and the whole 
issue in academia is to allow the range of ideas ...

Joyce Latham
GSLIS

>===== Original Message From DobbsA at apsu.edu =====
>While I like the modification of the tenure process "...the goal with
>post-peer review publishing would be to reach consensus on a stated problem
>or issue and reward, not just the author(s), but also the reviewers who can
>act as content contributors." idea, I feel that reaching consensus on a
>given issue may perhaps not neccesarily be the goal of the research process.
>Research seems more a wide ranging discussion of the issues at hand with all
>theories debatable and open for honest consideration, even the untenable
>pie-in-the-sky-not-a-chance-in-heck cranks can occasionally spark an idea.
>
>For the discussion board type approach (which seems to be what is described)
>to work there would likely need to be a moderation system and a
>meta-moderation system (and perhaps a meta-meta-moderation system) and would
>also require a non-self-serving ethos among the participants.  And, of
>course, who would moderate the meta- (and the meta-meta-) moderators? :)
>
>-Aaron
>:-)'
>
>Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi
>krimpatul.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: D.H. Mattison [mailto:dmattison at shaw.ca]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:42 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: [WEB4LIB] Online peer-review publishing and post-peer review
>publishing
>
>
>It's not a problem with online peer-reviewed publications because they
>don't have the hardcopy timelag (typesetting/layout, printing, binding,
>mailing). You could also do post-peer review publishing with a wiki-type
>system where continuous, open feedback is the norm. Of course this doesn't
>quite mesh with aspects of the tenure system as I understand it (publish or
>perish), but given that there're movements afoot to restructure the entire
>scholarly publishing system, what's wrong with post-peer review publishing
>as a process or additional type of scholarly publishing? If you forget or
>modify the tenure system to accommodate such a process, the goal with
>post-peer review publishing would be to reach consensus on a stated problem
>or issue and reward, not just the author(s), but also the reviewers who can
>act as content contributors.
>
>Well, ok, Rome wasn't built in a day ....
>
>David Mattison
>dmattison at shaw.ca

J.M. Latham
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois -- Urbana Champaign
latham1 at students.uiuc.edu