[6] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: Peer Review and the Net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Laws)
Thu Apr 16 11:45:32 1992
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 10:43:34 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: Ken Laws <LAWS@ai.sri.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9204141444.AB14014@Sunset.AI.SRI.COM>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> From Stevan Harnad:
> Until then, more
> futuristic forms of peer review (or no review at all) will only retard
> the process by compounding the novelty of, and hence the doubts about,
> the new medium.
Stevan -- I have tremendous respect for your experience in these matters.
You edit and publish journals. You write scholarly papers. You talk
with all the right people at conferences devoted to the future of
electronic publishing. Even so, I have great difficulty seeing truth
in your vision. It's as though you were examining a garden teeming with
worms and ladybugs, sowbugs and beetles, and were telling us how
much better it will be when we civilize them and impose social order.
There are tenured academics who delight in the existing academic system.
There are rednecks, reactionaries, conservatives, and even prophets like
yourself who would lead us forward into the past. (Sorry -- I can't
resist a great phrase.) The deans, department heads, and publishers
will rebuild their cities with electronic bricks, but will the rest of
us choose to live there?
Look at the reasons that scientists publish. Tenure is one, and they
will continue to publish as long as that is the only road to tenure.
Other reasons include advertising results, seeking feedback, making
connections, building a reputation, sharing in scholarly debate,
leaving a mark on history, impressing one's spouse, building a
consulting practice, learning publishing skills, and no doubt dozens
more. (Some that we wouldn't ordinarily admit to, such as peer
pressure, habit, and postponing of more-difficult chores.)
Of all the motivations for scholarly communication, there are very
few that require formal peer review. Peer review is commonly viewed
-- by the authors -- as an obstacle rather than a help. Given an
option, most scholars would rather bypass it. This is especially
true for not-yet-established scholars, but is also true for many
of the leaders. They don't have as much trouble getting published,
but they chafe at submitting proposals and papers to others. One
that I know of, Laveen Kanal, runs his own publishing operation for
himself and his students, bypassing outside review entirely.
You have claimed that we must first implement traditional journals, then
migrate to other forms. This may be true if funding is required from
traditional publishers and professional societies. It is not true if
market forces permit newsgroups and discussion lists to serve the urge
for scholarly publication. The Connectionists list at CMU is currently
the prime example. Some of us even choose the self-publishing approach,
as exemplified by moderated discussion lists like Bob Cowles' Chaos
Corner or my own Computists' Communique.
A thousand flowers are blooming; a thousand cities are competing.
Centrally planned societies are welcome, but hardly inevitable
and not necessarily desirable. Something new is happening, and
it would be a shame to force it into the old patterns.
-- Ken
-------
