The topic of poster sessions came up a short time ago among some other history graduate students and I was surprised at the responses. While not outright hostile, I got the sense (perhaps incorrectly to be fair) that few were open to the idea of creating a poster themselves. This response was surprising to me because I had just come across the AHA’s poster session list for its 2011 conference (which was not its first venture into poster sessions) as well as the fact that in many other disciplines posters are a widely used medium for research. Perhaps it was… Read DH and the (Social) Sciences
Leave a CommentTag: publishing
Dan Cohen on blogging being a dirty word for one academic who writes on a blog: There is no reason a blog has to be quickly or poorly written; also a must read is Rob Nelson’s Comment on the post: you appear to be time traveling back to confront the Dan Cohen of 2005 who wrote the first entry on this blog (http://www.dancohen.org/2005/11/14/welcome-to-my-blog/) … I agree with you that Nunokawa’s comment is too dismissive in that it contributes to a bias against the medium. At the same time, if he wants to characterize his online writing as essays or you… Read Academic Blogging
Leave a CommentThe Aporetic: What strikes me about arguments in support of open peer review is that they are often premised on a utopian vision of our digital future and a dystopian view of our analog present. The utopianism is neither surprising nor problematic. Proponents of change are understandably enthusiastic. Once experiments are launched, some of this enthusiasm will be tempered by experience. There is every reason to expect these models to improve through trial and error. I am concerned, though, about the extremely negative views of current peer review practices that seem to motivate the reform movement. There is no doubt… Read Defending Peer Review
Leave a CommentThe Aporetic: But peer review is a crushingly slow, turgid process. Established in the age when mail was delivered in horse cars, and no one expected or anything like fast communication, it coasts along on an earlier generation’s low expectations. Peer review is hard work for the reviewer, and more important, it’s both uncompensated and, for the most part, extremely unrewarding. You get nothing for your efforts except perhaps some books and a thank you. It’s a professional obligation, not a professional pleasure. … Suppose the editor were more like a moderator–someone who set an agenda, or a subject, and… Read Future of Academic Editing
Leave a Comment