Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

commons-research - Re: [Commons-research] open review model for upcoming workshop

commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Commons-research mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Alek Tarkowski <alek AT creativecommons.pl>
  • To: commons-research AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Commons-research] open review model for upcoming workshop
  • Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:56:12 +0100

Dear all,

Giorgos Cheliotis wrote:
My gripe still is that in none of the arguments you or Horrobin presented did I find actual support for the hypothesis that an open and eponymous review process will generally produce better results than an anonymous peer review process.

Well, then we have, I feel a good opportunity for "research in action". This makes me think of a statement from James Boyle that I like a lot, about how we are overly cautious, or even affraid of openness, mianly out of routine - we are much more used to closed processes.

If I may add to this discussion from a practical point of view (which might seem too "vulgar", I'm affraid, compared to arguments based on principles - and in a way rightly so). The peer review processes I have participated in have always been messy affairs. The anonymity is never perfect, as you just recognize some people by their work. Many other factors can be flawed - like the fact that some reviewers just don't spend enough time and energy; that there is no system for normalizing review scales and double or triple reviews are only a partial solution, etc.

So knowing that the peer review process is not perfect in general, and that opening it, while not clearly beneficial, should not be destructive either - I think we should be brave and go ahead with an open model.

Cheers,

Alek

--
dr Alek Tarkowski
koordynator / public lead
Creative Commons Polska / Poland
http://creativecommons.pl





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page