Re: [elfling-d] Re: David Salo's book on "Sindarin"
> Now, which "discipline" would that be?Linguistics I assume. But which branch though?...good point.
> Interesting methodological question. How does one evaluate "peer-hood" or "expertise" inTrue...so why the discussion? This is prehaps the point Salo was trying to make. Since this is really a hobby (ok, an amateur field if you like), any "peer review" is a moot point as there are no real peers (in the sense that we are discussing, not in the field).
> an amateur field?
In any case, it seems that Salo is releasing a book in the vein of David Crystal's excellent line. As it is not a "paper" (per se) again, is peer review warranted?
> In the case of professional academia, there is are institutions and protocol for evaluatingTrue.
> credentials (fairly or otherwise), and hence it is easier to judge who is a "peer" fit to review
> one's work.
> In the case of Tolkienian linguistics, however, would a publisher send a manuscript toI don't think its strickly this straightforward due to the field not been recognised outside of academia.
> And then there's the economic factor: I suspect that many University presses (especially atYou mean like almost everything published since LotR was released :-)
> state schools) are low- to no-profit organizations, and the tempation of publishing a book
> that would ride on the LOTR popularity wave might have managers seeing dollar signs.
The board meetings would no doubt be highly entertaining, and
> perhaps worthy of an episode of "Survivor" or "Celebrity Grudge Match," but at least thereHahaha.
> would be a consensus as to who the "peers" are for the purposes of reviewing work.
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
- Rachel Shallit writes:
> Anyway, a blind review process would really not serve any purpose.To date there have not even been hints of a problem.
> As far as I know, no one has tried to submit an article that had to
> be rejected; I am completely sure that no one has complained about
> the submission process or questioned the management of the site.
> And as for viewpoints that the editor doesn't agree with, I knowIndeed, I actively welcome any and all articles so long as sources are
> that a lot of the articles published there don't agree with Aaron's
> theories, but that doesn't keep him from hosting them on his site.
cited and grammar is maintained at an optimal level. While I do
disagree with some of the ideas presented on my site, I can see the
reasoning behind most of them and agree that they are possible
alternative interpretations. Differing interpretations of limited
data is fine - manipulation of data and lack of citation is not.
Sadly, Carl is very correct when he mentions that there are very few
scholarly works submitted. It is interesting to note, as Carl does,
that there have never been submissions by Salo or Fauskanger. Salo
hardly even posts to his own list.
> I may be biased, but I see no reason to try to fix I Lam Arth; itNor Tengwestie or VT. Never has there been a complaint about
> really isn't broken.
submission to either. If there had been a "coverup" I have no doubt
that it would have been "exposed" on ELFLING. I have complete faith
in Carl's ability to manage these scholarly works.
Carl and VT have been around *a lot* longer than I have and has thus
far a perfect track record. Pretty darn good for _many years_ of service.
PS. Good to hear from you Rachel :).