Refereed journal papers have been the gold standard for decades.
In my discipline, we ascribe power to peer #review -mainly double-blind #peerreview - where #authors & #reviewers have a two-way conversation mediated by an #editor.
When the editor is satisfied, the conversation ends & the submission is accepted or rejected.
For the most part, double-blind peer review works - when it’s genuinely double-blind - with research assessed by reviewers on its merits & all reviewer comments given equal weight by authors.
While many journals now publish #electronicversions, what is notable is the lack of innovation in the basic format of scholarly work.
While electronic, most journal articles emulate paper - with double columns, simple figures, and static citations.
While I believe in double-blind peer review & journals, I am puzzled why academics rely almost exclusively on #journals to share their findings with the world.
Why puzzled?
First, journals are slow to market.
Double-blind peer review takes months to see a paper from submission to publication.
Studies in academic fields like computing may no longer speak to practice in dynamic domains.
Second, #journals are often no more than brochure ware.
E-published papers are often identical to print versions.
Static content doesn’t realize the vision of Tim Berners-Lee - yet it remains pervasive in academe.
Third, journals reinforce established ways of doing things.
Where the Internet makes it possible to upload and share many forms of content necessary to evaluate research, rarely are articles & supporting data or artifacts made available together.
Rather than disrupting old business models, #electronicpublishing seems to reinforce the status quo.
In an era of online publications & new formats for sharing ideas, I have come to wonder if it is not time to build out complementary channels for sharing ideas & rewarding academics for participating in them.
What might that look like?
First, #research could be uploaded and open to public comment. Evidence supporting findings could be paired with succinct analysis & available for known reviewers to assess.
Perhaps, absent #anonymity, the discourse would be kind?
Second, rather than upload static papers, such as those hosted by #SSRN, we need to explore alternative formats that are more accessible to academic and non-academic audiences, such as multimedia, threaded conversations & so on.
To make sure novel formats are valued, #professionalgroups & #fundingagencies need to promote them as legitimate research.
Third, we need dynamic formats which allow research to be updated or contextualized to reflect new findings. This would allow authors to connect their work to evolving literature.
If #academe is going to keep up, it’s time to update how we communicate with each other and the world!
Comments