Could the hallowed academic tradition of peer review get tossed? The
New York Times raised the question Monday, examining attempts to update peer review for the digital era. Humanities scholars
who challenge "the monopoly that peer review has on admission to
career-making journals," Patricia Cohen
writes, "argue that in an era of digital media there is a better way to
assess the quality of work. Instead of relying on a few experts
selected by leading publications, they advocate using the Internet to
expose scholarly thinking to the swift collective judgment of a much
broader interested audience."
Cohen recounts the experiment of
The Shakespeare Quarterly, which "posted four essays not yet accepted
for publication" and then invited "a core group of experts ... to post
their signed comments on the Web site MediaCommons ... Others could add
their thoughts as well, after registering with their own names." The
editors then went in and made their final picks on what to run in
the printed journal.
Will this catch on? It's possible such methods won't "replace peer review" but rather add to them. Still, Cohen identifies one "daunting obstacle" to changing anything about the process:
Peer-review publishing is the path to a job and tenure, and no would-be
professor wants to be the academic canary in the coal mine.
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
hhorn at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.