Though I loved reading through Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s online book, Planned Obsolesence, the section entitled “How to Read this Text” gave me pause. In that how-to chapter, Fitzpatrick makes it very clear that she, not a third party, will be monitoring the book’s comment section and blog. While this makes sense (she needs to respond to readers, after all), I couldn’t help thinking that a less honest writer might be tempted to “edit” or even delete comments that she/he disliked. For a novel, this isn’t much of a problem; for a piece of scholarship, it’s a huge deal.
If digital scholars (or anyone else) are truly interested in post-publication peer review, they will need to develop ways to ensure that their reviewers’ comments can be screened by a third-party, not themselves. It seems like the easiest way to do this would be to build a digital publication space, hosted & monitored either by an organization like the AHA , and make it an open resource for scholars.
And another thought:
I was on a bus with my older brother last night, and we ended up discussing the differences between peer review in the humanities and the sciences. He’s coming to the end of med school, so I was hoping he could give me some insights into a process that’s so (ostensibly) different from our own.
At first, like in the podcast “Making It Count,” it felt like we were speaking different languages. After a few minutes, though, we came to a insight; my brother was astonished that historians did not need to “apply” to a bureaucratic body for permission to do their research. As he explained it, almost every scientific project has to be approved by regulatory organizations, doubly so if their research uses living beings. So, from his point of view, scientific research was a long, drawn out process, and the regulatory strictures placed on it easily outweighed the supposed “speed” of scientific publishing.
Thoughts?
Hi Jordan,
Thanks for listening to Digital Campus. I think you’re right that the two processes have more in common than might seem at first blush, and I think we in the humanities could learn a lot from the sciences. In fact, in many ways the digital humanities are forcing this convergence, including oftentimes having to apply for funding and thus having to justify a research project prior to its commencement. It’s more work, but personally, I’d view that as a net positive for humanities research. It would be interesting to see if your brother thought the sciences had anything to learn from the humanities.
Tom
Interesting point about third party moderation of post-publication peer review. It raises the question of whether such a site would allow anyone to publish their scholarship in that space and open themselves up to commentary. Would an AHA-run site only be open to Ph.Ds or or would students and amateur historians be able to contribute to the discussion? While I think having someone other than the author monitoring the comments is a great idea, I wonder if it could mean trading away some of the freedoms of digital publishing.
Thanks for reading, Tom and Allie.
To respond, after talking to my brother a bit more, we both decided that it would help to hear from someone who has their foot in both worlds – a historian of science, for instance, or a scientist who also works in the humanities. And I think you raise a great question, Allie, though hopefully and “hosted” site would simply act as another channel for scholarly conversation, not the end-all place for discussion.
Hello Jordan, interesting post.
Suppose I write a comment that Kathleen Fitzpatrick doesn’t care for, or wishes to edit without my permission. Even if I’m just a civilian, at least two people are going to know about it–KF and myself. She would be putting herself in a terrible position if she didn’t keep her word about not interfering with comments even then, to say nothing of the spot she’d be in if she were to tamper with the comments of a colleague in her own field or her own institution. Sock puppets will out, as well, as you will have observed if you’ve spent any time at all on listservs, etc. This kind of work, that requires such patient attention to all the minutiae, seems unlikely to withstand the kind of tampering you describe. (Or am I missing something??)