« Listen to King Lear - He's 12 and He Gets It | Main | Academia must divest from Intellectual Apartheid »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Glowing Willow

Thanks for sharing this. I didn't understand at first, that the tone in some of your earlier posts were to initiate a conversation and, at times, that you were being an antagonist to your own protagonist views. This is a good conference and I needed to read your point of view. I enjoy being made to think outside the box!

Stephen Humphrey

Outstanding. Wish I could be there.

So an interesting extension to these new debates on NewMediaPeerReview is going to be validation of the reviewers; what are we going to do to prevent "gaming the system" (namely, parallels to astroturfing and similar underworld phenomena we've already seen in political new media)? If the journal is today acting as the validator of the anonymous reviewers, who serves that function in new media?

The answer clearly will involve some form of reputation economies, but I'm not sure what forms that might take (although they will surely be something more rigorous than eBay ratings or Amazon starred reviews).

I guess a first-level approximation of the problem is that today the journal (and its editorial staff) acts almost as a form of group pseudonym to protect the article from biasing influence between the author and the reviewers. Can we build similar anonymity mediators in an online world when we are simultaneously promoting more open reputation systems?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to the Evolution!

Mobilise this Blog

Twitter Updates:

    follow me on Twitter

    Search this Site

    • Google


    Flickr Badge

    • www.flickr.com
      This is a Flickr badge showing items in a set called Academic Evolution remixes. Make your own badge here.
    Blog powered by Typepad
    Member since 03/2007