Skip to content →

Tag: publishing

DH and the (Social) Sciences

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 Comment

Academic Blogging

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 Comment

Defending Peer Review

The 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 Comment

Future of Academic Editing

The 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

Social Media & Publishing

The Chronicle: participants say social media are “being used as an alternative to the existing system by young researchers who feel frustrated” by the tight control that senior scholars and traditional publishers have over the selection and dissemination of research. Good papers increasingly turn up in the social-media networks, according to people in these focus groups. “They’re even beginning to question peer review,” Mr. Nicholas said. “They were honestly saying it’s more important to contact and connect with loads of people than simply pay homage to one or two authorities.” Some publishers who provided contact information for the survey have… Read Social Media & Publishing

Leave a Comment