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