|Peer-to-peer review and the future of scholarly authority|
|Citation:||Social Epistemology 24 (3): 161-179. 2010.|
|Publication type:||Journal article|
|Google Scholar cites:||Citations|
|Added by Wikilit team:||Added on initial load|
|Article:||Google Scholar BASE PubMed|
|Other scholarly wikis:||AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers|
|Web search:||Bing Google Yahoo! — Google PDF|
The nature of authority is shifting in online scholarly communication. This examination of the history and future of peer review argues that effective online communication requires the development of an open, community‐oriented, post‐publication system of peer‐to‐peer review, transforming peer review from a process focused on gatekeeping to one concerned with filtering the wealth of scholarly material made available via the Internet.
"This paper investigate the online scholarly publishing and how the online reviewing affects it. It proposes a general model of online peer-reviewing for future scholarly research."
|Theory type:||Analysis, Design and action|
|Collected data time dimension:||N/A|
|Unit of analysis:||N/A|
|Wikipedia data extraction:||N/A|
|Wikipedia page type:||N/A|
"would argue that it is this communication, and the scholarly growth that can result from it, that must become the focus of Web-native modes of peer review, allowing, as does Wikipedia, not just the results of our research and vetting processes, but the very processes themselves to become an open, accessible part of the published record.
The key to such new modes of authorization is a shift from traditionally understood peer review to peer-to-peer review. In conventional peer review, the "value" of texts is determined through a process of gatekeeping designed for an economics of scarcity, in which a limited number of pages, or journal issues, or monograph volumes can be published; these constraints require that publishers ensure that resources be reserved for only the very best material. Peer-to-peer review acknowledges that the Internet exists instead within an economics of abundance, in which there is no upper limit on the number or size of texts that may be published. What has become scarce, instead, is time and attention, and what is thus needed is not gatekeeping, but filtering, a community-based process in which groups of scholars determine for themselves the most important texts in their subfield."