Comments on: Peer Review, Journal Articles, and Blogs – an Example

By: learnhowtoplaypoker

learnhowtoplaypoker — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:35:48 +0000

The concept of discussing the peer review,journal article,blog is a good news. I am also thinks the same. Mr.Michael thought is good one. I had also seen the old article about peer preview.Its a great news.

By: Judith Siess

Judith Siess — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:54:26 +0000

I DEFINITELY feel that electronic publishing, with comments, is better than print–IF it can be archived somehow.
Why couldn't someone write an article and post it on a special blog or wiki, have several selected peers review it (selected by the owner of the blog or wiki, not the author, of course), then publish it with changes–AND the comments if possible. Then others could comment on it.
If there were a mechanism to control this, it could be much better than the current long, drawn-out, review process for print journals.

How does this correspond to how online journals work? For instance, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice? (http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/...).

I think this is something that is of interest to more than academics. If the process were easier and faster, perhaps more practitioners would contribute refereed articles.

By: The Eeyore Librarian

The Eeyore Librarian — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:00:02 +0000

Gave this article some link love over here Thanks for the great conversation starter!

By: davidleeking

davidleeking — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:13:45 +0000

Helene – agreed. And for me, in the librarian, tech, emerging trends field, journals simply don’t cut it.

It’s possible my focus is different. I’m not interested in “consulting the literature” – I’m more interesting in making our digital services work better. I’m trying to think of the last time I actually DID do a librarian lit search… and coming up empty! Probably about 3 years ago when I was looking for info on a work-related project.

Interesting…

By: davidleeking

davidleeking — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:08:53 +0000

Rachel – good point. It works for me because people already read my blog. I DO, however, think that good librarian blogs tend to float to the surface – those people writing good stuff tend to get noticed, either by thoughtful comments / contributions they leave on a blog, or through other means (ie., google alerts saved searches, etc).

By: helene blowers

helene blowers — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:02:15 +0000

David- I love this thread and actually think that both have value. But even so, the bottom line is information is time sensitive. The longer it takes to reach critical mass, the less timely it becomes. The balance is credibility/authority… but even that is being challenged by new avenues and tools and I might add, new voices.

Thanks for posting.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Mon, 26 May 2008 00:26:25 +0000

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a big proponent of both/and here. But it occurs to me that your posts, David, will receive comments because you have a wide and active readership — but Joe Schmoe new librarian who starts a blog is unlikely to get similar feedback. So the value of your “peer review” on a blog seems to depend largely on your name recognition.

By: Judith Siess

Judith Siess — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:53:04 +0000

Kathy Dempsey’s comment is right on! I try to be as current as possible in my newsletter, The One-Person Library, but it isn’t always possible.
However, documenting the past is also worthwhile. We have to know what people did and thought and tried so we don’t make the same mistakes. And some issues never die (fee v. free, print v. electronic, MLS v. experience, librarian salaries too low, etc. ad nauseum).

By: Kathy Dempsey

Kathy Dempsey — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:45:11 +0000

I always thought of Computers in Libraries magazine as that kind of in-between place. Articles published there don’t appear at blog-speed, but they never took 2 years either!

During the many years I worked as an editor of CIL (till I resigned in Dec 07), I keenly felt the pressure of publishing articles at the right times. too bleeding-edge to be useful? too old to be interesting? CIL never had peer review; I (and other editors before me) made it my business to understand the industry and the technology well enough to be able to determine when something was “ready to publish.”

here’s another thought: the library industry is like a fast-flowing river. the best any publication can do (print or electronic) is to capture and record a certain moment in time. to me, by the time peer-reviewed journals come out, they are simply preserving history, not moving readers toward the future. that act has its place, but I don’t think journals are the place people go to explore the here & now & new.

By: Blake

Blake — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:57:19 +0000

I used to think there was a place for both, and while I’m not one to over hype blogs, I just don’t see any advantage to waiting 2 years to read something. I think Walt and Francesco have it right, there are probably 2 different issues here, I honestly no longer see the advantage to the old way. We have the tools to make it better now we just have to wait a few years for more people to retire.