Peer review before or after publication
If you ever wondered why Web2.0 affordances are not embraced for scholarly communication, you may find a shattering answer in this report from UC Berkeley. It impressively describes how the petrified system of tenure and research grant decisions and peer review before publishing just does not leave room for more sophisticated ways of sharing, filtering, and peer review after publishing.
Once you have understood and experienced the potential of blogging, shared bookmarking and annotation for the extremely efficient and synergetic exchange and generation of ideas and insights, it is just discouraging to read this (unanimous, well-meant, and sincere) advice to young scholars:
“focus on publishing in the right venues and avoid spending too much time on [...] blogging, and other non-traditional forms of electronic dissemination (including courseware).” (p. 9)
After all, there is a little hope: Established scholars seem to enjoy more freedom. So perhaps older faculty could set a good example and engage in more generous sharing of ideas? And perhaps a true elite university shows by tenure decision practices that more broadmindedly consider new indicators of brilliance and reputation, leaving the mere bean-counting of bibliometrics to the midrange unis? Fortunately, I know at least one older professor of our elite university who blogs.
(Credit for the link is due to OLDaily.)
Comments: