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