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

[Justin Washtell]

Jim,

I couldn't agree with you more. I never could quite get the hang of irony.
I might be better at analogy: disciplines are like blind men to nature's elephant.

Justin Washtell
University of Leeds

________________________________________
From: Jim Fidelholtz [fidelholtz at gmail.com]
Sent: 31 March 2010 16:55
To: Justin Washtell
Cc: Yuri Tambovtsev; corpora at uib.no
Subject: Re: [Corpora-List] Peer reviewing is good for trivial or average       books

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<mailto: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<mailto:corpora-bounces at uib.no> [corpora-bounces at uib.no<mailto:corpora-bounces at uib.no>] On Behalf Of Yuri Tambovtsev [yutamb at mail.ru<mailto:yutamb at mail.ru>]
Sent: 30 March 2010 13:05
To: corpora at uib.no<mailto: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<mailto: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

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