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

[Jim Fidelholtz]

Hi, Justin et al.,

I take your comment (... multidisciplinary nonsense ...) to mean you think
(the term) 'corpora' implies monolithicity, or even that it is somehow a
'discipline'. If recent discussions show nothing else, it shows we are an
undisciplined bunch! ;)

... but seriously, you only need to look at any collection of articles with
both 'corpus' and 'discourse' in the title to see the heterogeneity of
corpus studies (even in this supposed subdiscipline), which of course
implies (in the best of cases!) multidisciplinarity. Multidisciplinarity
widens horizons for everybody (assuming a decent selection of
representatives of each discipline) and makes for richer research, not to
mention that it would tend to be more widely applicable.

Jim

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Justin Washtell <lec3jrw at leeds.ac.uk>wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
James L. Fidelholtz
Posgrado en Ciencias del Lenguaje
Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades
Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, MÉXICO
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20100331/416e48d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora