[Air-L] open-access - a practical question

[Gerry Mckiernan]

Nicole/

I've thought about these issues for quite some time ...

I strongly believe that the scholarly communication/publishing process is undergoing a major transformation ...

Do Visit My Scholarship 2.0 blog

[ http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/ ] 

Items of Interest Include:

>>Establishing a Research Agenda for Scholarly Communication

>>Show Me The Data! Show Me The Data! Show Me The Data! 

>>Economics: A Public Peer Reviewed e-Journal 

>>ELPUB2008: Open Scholarship: Authority, Community and Sustainability in the Age of Web 2.0 

>>MediaCommons: A Digital Scholarly Network 

>>" ... The Times They Are A-Changin'" 

>>Horizon Report 2007: New Scholarship and Emerging Forms of Publication 

>>LAMPSS: Lots of Alternative Models Provide Sensible Solutions. I: Open Peer Review 

>>Ideal Speech Situation 

>>Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet 

>>Valuing Non-Traditional Vehicles of Scholarship 

>>Electronic Literature Organization

>>The Promise of Authority in Social Scholarship 

>>Digital Scholarship in the Tenure, Promotion, and Review Process

>>Report of the MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion 

>>Disruptive Scholarship 
>>DisruptiveScholarshipModel 

The Last Two Are Mine And Emphasize Scholarship as Conversation (within a Wiki environment).
(In IMHO The Wiki Can Be Configured As The Ideal Open Access Model)

Speaking of Ideal, I believe that the 'Ideal Speech Situation" posting (noted above) will also be of interest as well.

Regards,

/Gerry

Gerry McKiernan
Associate Professor
Science and Technology Librarian
Iowa State University Library
Ames IA 50011

gerrymck at iastate.edu  

There is Nothing More Powerful Than  An Idea Whose Time Has Come
Victor Hugo
[ http://www.blogger.com/profile/09093368136660604490 ]

Iowa: Where the Tall Corn Flows and the (North)West Wind Blows ...
[ http://www.alternativeenergyblogs.blogspot.com/ ]

c: AIR-L

>>> Nicole Ellison <> 2/10/2008 3:13 PM >>>
I have a question that ties together two recent issues on this  
thread: peer review and open access.  My personal stance: I'd like to  
see academic research become more freely available online while  
maintaining peer review. Assuming some of you share these goals, how  
do we reconcile the common act of putting early-stage work online,  
either as blog posts/talk cribs (like danah) or as full papers, while  
maintaining blind peer review? A personal anecdote: Recently I  
reviewed a paper for a top-tier academic journal and Googled one of  
the citations to find out more about it. To my surprise I found a  
copy of the paper I was reviewing, with full authorship information  
and citation info that claimed it was "In press" at the journal! This  
is an extreme case, but it seems to me that as more work comes online  
(e.g. through blog posts or full papers) before the peer-review  
process is completed, the chance that this work will be reviewed  
blindly are lessoned.

Any thoughts on what practices (for authors, editors, and reviewers)  
make most sense for balancing the benefits of circulating ideas and  
work early vs. the goal of maintaining blind review (or what's left  
of it)?

Thanks,
Nicole


* * *
Nicole Ellison, PhD
nellison at msu.edu 




_______________________________________________
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org 
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org 

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
http://www.aoir.org/