Wikipedia Age Challenges Scholars' Sacred Peer Review - New York Times Options

[Newsfeed]

[url="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNGcoRqhSXPRoZwZLiGE3qFSeOZmbA&url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html"][img]http://nt1.ggpht.com/news/tbn/9cfM_8D61C8tbM/6.jpg[/img]
New York Times[/url]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia Age Challenges Scholars' Sacred Peer Review[/b]
New York Times
Dan Cohen, director of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, is among the academics who advocate a more open, Web-based approach ...

and more »

View the article

[Newsfeed]

[url="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNHb70kyZ58rhld2M5_q1k9Q4SZpcA&url=http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=661de7b20c1dabc690b62f93c79ac96e"][img]http://nt1.ggpht.com/news/tbn/9cfM_8D61C8tbM/6.jpg[/img]
New York Times[/url]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia Age Challenges Scholars' Sacred Peer Review[/b]
New York Times
Dan Cohen, director of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, is among the academics who advocate a more open, Web-based approach ...

and more »

View the article

[Milton Roe]

zOMG, it's the frigging end of the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?_r=1

[Jon Awbrey]

Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review

Yeah, but I notice they don't allow comments on their article, much less allow us to edit it.

Jon Awbrey
Sometime Editor in Chief of The Shakespeare Drawn & Quarterly

[Seurat]

zOMG, it's the frigging end of the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?_r=1

I think it would be productive to allow the amateurs to review papers in addition to traditional peer review. It's one area where the Citizendium approach might actually work. If amateurs did good enough work, perhaps they could even be promoted.

[Moulton]

Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review

Yeah, but I notice they don't allow comments on their article, much less allow us to edit it.

Jon Awbrey
Sometime Editor in Chief of The Shakespeare Drawn & Quarterly

It might take a day, but most articles are ported over to the associated ArtsBlog, where you can comment.

Mixing traditional and new methods, the journal posted online four essays not yet accepted for publication, and a core group of experts — what Ms. Rowe called “our crowd sourcing” — were invited to post their signed comments on the Web site MediaCommons, a scholarly digital network. Others could add their thoughts as well, after registering with their own names. In the end 41 people made more than 350 comments, many of which elicited responses from the authors. The revised essays were then reviewed by the quarterly’s editors, who made the final decision to include them in the printed journal, due out Sept. 17.

Note that the authors are obliged to stand behind their reviews. No masquerade ball, and no baleeting the other guy's comments.

See also: Science 2.0 -- Is Open Access Science the Future?

Science 2.0 generally refers to new practices of scientists who post raw experimental results, nascent theories, claims of discovery and draft papers on the Web for others to see and comment on.

I do that on Google Knol (Hi GBG).