Re: Peer reviewed publishing / reputation-based systems
- Pete CC'd me a letter to Chris Peterson of the Foresite Institute,
http://www.foresite.org, whom we visited this spring. I'm especially
interested in the continuum that Pete describes. Right now I'm working
with George Christian Jeyeraj here in Lithuania to develop a simple
technology (Internet forms) for reviewing old letters, reminding
ourselves of what tasks and endeavors they document. Pete describes a
continuum of review on a scale of anonynimity, from "well-known experts"
to "indeterminable social-forces".
I'm curious how the various kinds of review relate to "raising
awareness", "raising consciousness". For example, the system that I'm
working on now will have us write comments regarding our old letters,
but we won't concern ourselves with "who is the author of the comments"
because this is a communal reflection so that would just be irrelevant,
a distraction. Perhaps review helps make us aware, and anonymity keeps
the reviewer from becoming a distraction. Whereas the authority of an
expert is helpful when we don't want to be distracted by doubts, we can
rely on authority. Can the authority of an expert increase our
+370 (2) 60-67-38
Peter Kaminski wrote:
> Hi, Chris! I write because I know you're interested in
> reputation-based systems, collaborative filtering, etc.
> I had a small epiphany when a statistician friend asked how
> manuscripts submitted for publication are evaluated in non-science
> fields such humanities or social sciences, and whether any of the
> science-type peer review procedures are used or not. I found some
> interesting and relevant information on the web on the subject. I've
> posted those links and more of the discussion on my wiki at
> <http://www.istori.com/cgi-bin/wiki?PeerReviewedPublishing>, if you're
> Electronic publication has opened up a discussion that it's possible
> now to publish a lot more than is practical with paper journals, with
> subsequent discussion about how refereeing fits into that (see
> Hanard's "subversive proposal"
> <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/>, for instance).
> For me, this segues into the reputation systems and collaborative
> filtering work that's been done recently online.
> So the epiphany was that peer review sort of fits into a continuum
> that includes collaborative filtering, and even idea futures. The
> continuum runs from tightly-controlled content to chaotic,
> market-based control:
> * editoral board review [professional editors]
> * peer review [knowledgable editors]
> * reputation-based systems [democratic editing]
> * collaborative filtering [communal editing]
> * idea futures [market-based evaluation of key theses]
> This transitions into the collaborative thinking stuff that I work on
> with Andrius, so that's why I'm interested.