[Corpora-List] Peer reviewing is good for trivial or average books

[Justin Washtell]

Is it not the author's job to communicate the importance of his work to his peers? If it is genuinely important, and well written, it will be obvious to his audience. If it is not obvious, it is probably better to do more work or to rewrite than take a scattergun approach to dissemination.

Alas this theory falls down if the reasons for the rejection are political. In which case I suppose one might as well get the guns out.

Are we off topic again? I don't know... all this multidisciplinary nonsense!

Justin Washtell
University of Leeds

________________________________________
From: corpora-bounces at uib.no [corpora-bounces at uib.no] On Behalf Of Yuri Tambovtsev [yutamb at mail.ru]
Sent: 30 March 2010 13:05
To: corpora at uib.no
Subject: [Corpora-List] Peer reviewing is good for trivial or average books

Johanna Nichols wrote:
Self-publishing bypasses peer review, and peer review is a much more
important function of journal publication than boosting careers is.  Peer
review is so essential to distinguishing science from pseudoscience that I
don't think it should be bypassed, at least not very often.
Johanna Nichols =
Is Peer reviewing so essential? Would Bruno's, Galileo's, Copernicus', Einstein's theories have been published, if they had been peer reviewed? Peer reviewing is good for trivial or average books and articles without new scientific information. Don't you think so? How many articles of young linguists which are not trivial are rejected by journals? All? I wouldn't be surprised. Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk

_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora