[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] FW: New PhD comic for 08/05/09!

It seems to be a fairly common misconception that the open access movement works in opposition to the traditional peer review process. In fact, the work of the movement is establishing strategies for allowing peer review and open access to coexist in harmony, and many OA adherents are working to do just that: 
http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/dean/peer_reviewed.htm
As most of you are probably aware, open access is closely aligned with the open source and open education movements, all of which embrace the notion that more access to more information and a greater capacity for expressing and circulating scholarly research benefits everyone. These movements have had some trouble getting off the ground for lots of reasons, one of which being that academia is in general a notoriously ungenerous field: Tenured positions are granted to those who can contribute something new, innovative, and unique. Why, then, would academics--especially budding academics--want to make their work available to all? I ask this as a budding academic who also happens to be a True Believer in the Open Education, Open Access, and Open Source movements, despite the inherent contradictions.
I've written about this a bunch on my (non peer-reviewed) blog, most recently at http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com/2009/07/opening-up-scholarship-generosity-among.html . (The nice thing about blogs etc is that I can publish whatever I want on whatever topic that interests me, without having to deal with silly peer review processes; the downside is that none of the hundreds of thousands of words I've published there on academic topics 'count' as academic publishing.) 

cheers,
jenna

~~

Jenna McWilliams
Candidate of Awesome
Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
~
http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
~
jenmcwil@indiana.edu
jennamcjenna@gmail.com




~~

Jenna McWilliams
Candidate of Awesome
Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
~
http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com

~
jenmcwil@indiana.edu
jennamcjenna@gmail.com





On Aug 8, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
Briefly....I will paraphrase Churchill's remarks about capitalism: Peer 
review the worst system imaginable, except for all the others.
I thought that the comic/cartoon/manga was well-done in that it laid out some pretty contentious issues in a short narrative without undermining any of the positions presented. So I didn't so much take away anything from the comic/cartoon/manga as I thought that it effectively laid out a dilemma.
I'll just repeat that I'm a former journal editor and frequent reviewer for 
journals, and value the peer review system. It makes my work better by
providing my work with critical readings. If I don't like them or think that they or the editor is misguided, I can take my paper elsewhere; but if I feel that the editors and reviewers are in synch with my goals and have 
something to offer me, I can stay with their guidance and try again.
Others may disagree, in which case open access forums should serve their 
purposes well. p

Peter Smagorinsky
Professor of English Education
Department of Language and Literacy Education
The University of Georgia
125 Aderhold Hall
Athens, GA 30602
smago@uga.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca- bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On 
Behalf Of Mike Cole
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 9:03 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] FW: New PhD comic for 08/05/09!

What message do you take away from the cartoon, Peter?
Publishers for sure should not be the gatekeepers.
And peer review is often flawed.
But then what?
For many years,what is now MCA was a newsletter. A print discussion forum 
before the internet evolved as it has.
Then, at Yrjo's urging, it became a print journal, now with online version 
if you pay for the print (ask Andy about the
joys of this arrangement) and many people, at present the most burdened of 
whom is Wolf-Michael and staff at LCHC,
plus lots of xmca-ites and other reviewers produce MCA. The argument Yrjo 
used to get the newsletter to journal status
was that the field and the careers of individuals working in it required 
institutionalized recognition. The most recent
version of his is the struggle for ISI status to satisfy the current
generation of bean counters.
It would be easy as pie to chuck all this and have xmca be re- organized so 
that people could publish long papers with open
access and no reviewing, so that members of xmca would simply have a long 
list of "papers for discussion" and quality would
equal what was discussed a lot.
No ISI, no blind peer commentary. Just agor uber alles. A lot less work for 
editors, managing editors, and reviewers.

Preferable?
mike
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote: 


This cartoon seems pertinent to some discussions here about academic

review

processes and publication impact. p


From: PhD Comics [mailto:new_comic@phdcomics.com]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 2:49 PM
To: mailinglist2@phdcomics.com
Subject: New PhD comic for 08/05/09!

Hi!

A new 'Piled Higher & Deeper' comic strip has been posted at:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1208

Enjoy!


--
To unsubscribe to this mailing list, go to:
www.phdcomics.com/comics/subscribe.html




(2)

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca