Mixing traditional and new methods, the journal [“the prestigious Shakespeare Quarterly”] posted online four essays not yet accepted for publication, and a core group of experts . . . were invited to post their signed comments on the Web site MediaCommons, a scholarly digital network. Others could add their thoughts as well, after registering with their own names. In the end 41 people made more than 350 comments, many of which elicited responses from the authors. The revised essays were then reviewed by the quarterly’s editors, who made the final decision to include them in the printed journal, due out Sept. 17.
The NY Times article never says how many of the four posted essays were published. If all of them made the cut, then perhaps the web stuff was just for show. And if any of them didn’t make the cut, the public embarrassment would be great. Perhaps too great. I suspect that all of them made the cut and the whole thing was closer to a publicity stunt than something that you could plausibly do again and again. If the probability of acceptance given that your essay is posted is 100%, what matters is getting posted. Peer review wasn’t replaced by web review; it was replaced by behind-closed-doors review.
Another instance of academics outwitting this particular journalist:
To Mr. Cohen, the most pressing intellectual issue in the next decade is this tension between the insular, specialized world of expert scholarship and the open and free-wheeling exchange of information on the Web. “And academia,” he said, “is caught in the middle.”
Haha! Poor poor professors! Caught in the middle! I was under the impression that professors = expert scholarship. Anything to distract attention from the real change: The more education you can get from the Web, the less you need to get from professors. The more evaluation you can get from the Web (e.g., by reading someone’s blog), the less you need to get from professors. The less professors are needed, the fewer of them there will be.
Thanks to Dave Lull.
“The revised essays were then reviewed by the quarterly’s editors, who made the final decision to include them in the printed journal”
Doesn’t that mean “. . . to include all of them?”
Maybe. It might also mean the editors were the ones who made the final decision.
The web alternative requires that people think for themselves and not just accept what’s on the menu. That’s good imho
And a reason why I like this blog. So Thank you Seth for your blog!
Gunnar
Wouldn’t posting them anonymously solve the embarassment problem?