From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:15:53 +0100

PeerJ looks to be a fascinating project as one would expect if Peter
Binfield has anything to do with this but like ELife and other existing
journals it seems to be aimed at the Nature slot or something just below
Nature. The quotation from Peter is rather a giveaway - "It is far more
embarrassing to produce work which no one finds worth commenting
upon - or that no one finds at all."

It is my understanding that the myth that there are papers no one reads has
been exploded but others will correct me. The download records show that
some people always get as far as that. The huge majority of papers are not
of great interest to many. It is not that they are inferior. They are more
specialised. Science is built on years of specialist work - building up
knowledge: someone then sees the significance and produces something
exciting. It can take a long time.

All publishers dealing with specialist journals know this but unfortunately
it is those who work for the top journals, top in terms of ranking and wide
interest, who dominate discussions like this. I am not referring to Sean or
indeed Peter (PLOS ONE is really rather a different animal) here.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Andrews <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:20:42 -0500

Jim,

You raise some interesting points - and thank you for passing along
this link to the draft of their paper.  First I wanted to also mention
in relation to other conversations on the list is that your notion of
peer review is also something included as at least an aspiration for
the nascent PeerJ.  To repeat what I've said elsewhere, I am
cautiously optimistic about said experiment, but in no way think they
hang the moon.  Still, in response to the question, "What type of peer
review will PeerJ engage in? Will it be closed or open?" Peer J
Cofounder Peter Binfield responded with the following:

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/arti
cle/52512-scholarly-publishing-2012-meet-peerj.html

"All articles will be assigned to a qualified academic editor, who
will be an independent, practicing academic. That person will then
seek qualified peer reviewers and make a decision based on their
input.

"That said, we believe in open peer review. That means, first,
reviewer names are revealed to authors, and second, that the history
of the peer review process is made public upon publication. However,
we are also aware that this is a new concept. Therefore, we are
initially going to encourage, but not require, open peer review.
Specifically, we will be adopting a policy similar to The EMBO
Journal: reviewers will be permitted to reveal their identities to
authors, and authors will be given the choice of placing the peer
review and revision history online when they are published. In the
case of EMBO, the uptake by authors for this latter aspect has been
greater than 90%, so we expect it to be well received."

Aside from the parallel with the Media Commons project you mention,
I'd also like to piggyback on your own comment and mention that the
fear you discuss - in the more open peer review process people will
see all your flaws and mock you for them openly - is not necessarily
the most embarrassing thing. It is far more embarrassing to produce
work which no one finds worth commenting upon - or that no one finds
at all.  This is a real risk in the move to a more open peer review
process, except were, as in the PeerJ case, there are still editors
who have been assigned to assign the article to peer reviewers.  When
it is on the open web instead the problem may be that no one finds
your work - or finds it interesting enough - to comment upon.

In any case, it is certainly a nice coincidence to come across both of
these highly public projects at about the time you mention this as an
important attribute of future scholarship.

Best,

Sean

Sean Johnson Andrews
[log in to unmask]
Assistant Professor of Cultural Studies


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:22:42 -0400
>
> I raised a hypothetical a couple of weeks ago here about the results
> of making public information about where and whether
> scholarly/scientific articles have been peer reviewed and *declined*.
>
> My thanks to those who commented, with a range of views from
> indifference to disagreement to agreement-with-skepticism (i.e., "nice
> idea but it'll never work").  I now see reference to an ambitious
> study of "open peer review" practices, funded by Mellon and carried
> out by MediaCommons and NYU.  Quite logically, it is accepting
> comments -- open review on a document about open review.
>
> http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/open-review/
>
> A very interesting document and worth a serious look.  What strikes me
> is the role of nervousness in these conversations.  The point of
> publication -- making *public* -- is a fretful-making one in a variety
> of ways.  What has been safely held suddenly becomes vulnerable to
> attack from all directions, and much of what we do is designed to put
> the toe gingerly in the water (or peel the bandaid off *very* slowly
> and carefully).  I think of the way many publications have been
> previewed in private writing groups, then in local colloquia, then in
> talks given in friendly settings, then in conference talks, and
> finally sent off to blind review by a serious journal.
>
> That nervousness needs to be respected, while at the same time I
> wonder what can become of it in a world in which private space shrinks
> and chatter flourishes.  The blog posting from that departmental
> colloquium ("I can't believe what an awful paper I'm listening to --
> it's something about the influence of paleobotany on the sale of straw
> hats in Tannu Tuva") starts to break old expectations of privacy.  Who
> will be intimidated and who will be heedless -- and which strategy
> will advance careers more?
>
> Jim O'Donnell
> Georgetown