[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...
- From: Steve Hitchcock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:36:53 EDT
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Sally is quite right about the two roles of peer review, evaluation and relevance to audience. The latter is often overlooked in these debates, and it's why arbitrary peer review panels conceived without purpose and audience (in the hypothetical debates, at least) don't stack up. However, Stevan Harnad's original point was that for online journals the critical remaining function is peer review rather than distribution and access. In that case the second role is not to be discarded but at least reconsidered. Online, new audiences are being created on micro and macro levels. You can see this in action everywhere in this sequence: blog, twitter, open Web bookmark, open bibliographies, tag, feed, blog, etc. The definition of online audiences and communities is less likely to be journal-centred unless they are participating in providing open access. Steve Hitchcock KeepIt Project Manager IAM Group, School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: email@example.com http://preservation.eprints.org/keepit/ project blog: http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/keepit/ ___ On 03/07/2009 04:14, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) wrote: > I think we're in danger of losing sight of the fact that PR does > two different things: > > 1)It provides evaluation, by experts, of the validity of the > study, its findings, and the conclusions drawn therefrom > > 2)It provides evaluation, by experts familiar with a particular > journal and its readership, of the novelty, interest, and > relevance of the work to that particular community. You can't > do that without a clear idea of what the 'journal' (as envelope, > not as physical object) actually represents > > To my mind, the second is at least as valuable to readers as the > first. (In some cases, it also contributes - through triangular > 'dialogue' between author, editor and reviewer - to significant > improvement of both the content and the expression) > > Sally Morris > Email: firstname.lastname@example.org