Peer reviewing

[Mark P. Line]

The term "peer" is not a misnomer: As I was saying, it's the same
community of researchers who do the writing as well as the reviewing as
well as the hiring, firing and promoting (departmental pecking orders
notwithstanding).

In other words, quality control is and should be a function of the
community of peers -- a publishing company's business process must support
that function, not the other way around.

So I don't think we're limited to profit-making companies for the
dissemination of high-quality literature.

-- Mark

Mark P. Line



dryer at buffalo.edu wrote:
>
> One point that I think is worth mentioning that has not been made
> explicitly in this discussion (although I may have overlooked it) is that
> the process of peer review is taken far more seriously for journals than
> it
> is for edited volumes.  There is usually a far higher chance of rejection
> and often the reviews are more helpful.  And this is the reason why
> journal
> publications tend in some sense to be worth more than chapters in edited
> volumes and why they are justifiably treated as worth more in tenure and
> promotion decisions.
>
> While I believe that the future lies in online journals, my worry is that
> the peer review process will never be taken as seriously as it is for
> printed journals.  There is something of a Catch-22 here.  While on the
> one
> hand the availability of electronic publishing renders the cost of
> publishers as "middle-men" unnecessary, the very fact that there are
> companies making money that they will not make if they do not provide a
> good product means that it is almost inevitable that the peer review
> process for printed journals will always be taken more seriously than for
> online journals.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>


-- Mark

Mark P. Line
Bartlesville, OK