The New York Times a few days ago we talk opportunities that digital media offer academics to overcome the limitations of peer-reviewed. The discussion refers
humanistic scope but can be exported and comparable with what is happening in the social sciences and natural ones.
The central idea is the open-review. The article presents a series of efforts made by publishing a widening the pool of reviewers who comment publicly papers and chapters in books published.
The wikipedia reference model is applied to the academic literature. The variations are many, but these aspects are essential.
In the NYT argues that we are witnessing one of the most radical transformations in the way we read, write and do circulate knowledge since the invention of movable type.
It discusses the quality and marketability of the open-academic review. Matthew Nisbet points out that open-review must go hand in hand with the open-access.
points are important, but showing only the tip of the iceberg of problems to overcome the model of peer-reviewed. The deeper reasons related to my view at least two considerations:
first question: the peer-review is the practice of communication through which scientific knowledge in particular and the academic in general, have earned a strong consensus social
Second question (related to the first): increasing the number of people who value a work means to legitimize other experts (non-academic) to determine the quality of knowledge produced. It 's a process equivalent to include forms of knowledge is not currently considered "scientific." It 'a procedure which would help to move the dividing line between knowledge accredited academic and other knowledge, between science and non-science. This border has historically been determined by negotiation and communication processes.
For these reasons I do not have enough technical options available to change a system that has the function to select the class from which academic and social identity and recognition.
The point I wish to emphasize that the digital revolution is so disruptive shows the close relationship between knowledge production and communication, even in science.
E 'a discourse that helps us to understand better why it can be very useful, as suggested by the historian James Secord, read the scientific enterprise as a particular form of communicative action . On
JCOM, the magazine of which I am director, we have devoted a special issue science peer-to-peer last March. It 's a subject related to the debate triggered by the NYT and the procedures for inclusion, exclusion, defining the categories of expert linked to communication practices.
0 comments:
Post a Comment