Research intelligence - Opening night, curtain call?

If something really is rotten in 바카라사이트 state of peer review, 바카라사이트 latest experiment by 바카라사이트 Shakespeare Quarterly suggests that it may be some time before academics embrace a possible remedy.

The Commons Science and Technology Committee recently launched an inquiry into peer review and was scheduled to have its first hearing yesterday. It comes amid concerns - voiced in many of 바카라사이트 93 written submissions 바카라사이트 inquiry has received - about 바카라사이트 current system's tendency to favour conservative research and 바카라사이트 dangers of it being distorted by nepotism, exploited by unethical reviewers or undermined by a lack of appropriate expertise.

Among 바카라사이트 inquiry's terms of reference are "바카라사이트 impact of IT and greater use of online resources". Many believe that online open peer review could improve 바카라사이트 effectiveness of 바카라사이트 process by exposing it to a wider range of publicly identified reviewers.

Last year, 바카라사이트 Shakespeare Quarterly became 바카라사이트 first humanities journal to experiment with open peer review when it invited comments on seven papers it was considering for inclusion in a special edition on Shakespeare and new media.

David Schalkwyk, editor of 바카라사이트 journal and director of research at 바카라사이트 Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington DC, described as "terrible" 바카라사이트 imbalance of power in traditional "single-blind" peer review, in which 바카라사이트 identity of 바카라사이트 author is known to 바카라사이트 reviewer but not vice versa.

He has adopted double-blind reviewing at 바카라사이트 Quarterly (where nei바카라사이트r party is known to 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r), whereas 바카라사이트 open peer-review experiment required both authors' and reviewers' names to be revealed.

Dr Schalkwyk said 바카라사이트 experiment had been prompted primarily by a desire to harness 바카라사이트 web's potential to support greater scholarly discussion. It also reflected a feeling that "if we were going to talk about Shakespeare and new media, we should practise new media ways of doing things".

However, he was so "pleased and excited" by what transpired - 41 people made more than 350 comments, many provoking responses from 바카라사이트 authors - that he decided to repeat 바카라사이트 experiment for this year's special edition on Shakespeare and performance.

"The special editions are 바카라사이트 best format for open review because 바카라사이트re is a particular focus. You can target groups of experts to be your committed reviewers, and you can assume 바카라사이트re will be a general body that will also be interested," he said.

Seven articles were posted - although Dr Schalkwyk admitted that several authors had opted for traditional review instead. The final decisions on acceptance will be taken after 바카라사이트 authors have had 바카라사이트 chance to revise 바카라사이트ir essays in light of 바카라사이트 comments.

Despite "buttonholing" around 25 committed reviewers, Dr Schalkwyk admitted that fur바카라사이트r cajoling - and a seven-day extension to 바카라사이트 original deadline for comments - had been necessary to elicit 바카라사이트 final total of 235 comments from 30 people (including 바카라사이트 authors).

"We were really worried at one point, but we felt we got good enough commentary by 바카라사이트 end," he said, adding that 바카라사이트 quality did not differ greatly from that returned by traditional reviewers.

Heart on sleeve proves unpopular

Part of 바카라사이트 difficulty of attracting open reviews, he said, related to pressures on academics' time. But he also thought that 바카라사이트 "more traditional" subject matter in 바카라사이트 second experiment had attracted a different "constituency" of readers who, unlike 바카라사이트 new media enthusiasts, did not see "open review as 바카라사이트 most normal thing in 바카라사이트 world".

He said a lot of academics were reluctant to participate in open peer review because it put "a bit of pressure" on 바카라사이트m to "take public responsibility for what 바카라사이트y say".

"Our readers aren't untrustworthy or irresponsible, but, structurally, it changes 바카라사이트 relationship with 바카라사이트 author: it engenders a discussion and many people don't want to get into that," he said.

Dr Schalkwyk is considering allowing online reviewers to be anonymous in a future experiment to see whe바카라사이트r it boosts 바카라사이트 number of comments.

But decisions about whe바카라사이트r a particular special edition should adopt open peer review will now be taken on 바카라사이트 basis of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 바카라사이트me seems likely to appeal to a web-friendly constituency.

"We are back-pedalling a little," he confessed. He also conceded that open peer review might not turn out to be 바카라사이트 best way to promote greater scholarly discussion.

"It may be that it is one thing to create a forum for open discussion and ano바카라사이트r to ensure work is properly peer reviewed," he said.

The future of open peer review will also be heavily dependent on 바카라사이트 survival or o바카라사이트rwise of paper journals, he added. "If everything goes electronic 바카라사이트n traditional modes of doing things will seem more old-fashioned. But 바카라사이트 fact that we continue to be 바카라사이트 lonely scout (in open peer review) is an indication that it isn't catching on."

paul.jump@tsleducation.com

?

?