Comments on: Peer (to Peer) Review? http://acrlog.org/2008/06/06/peer-to-peer-review-2/ Blogging by and for academic and research librarians Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:32:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: LOTW follow-up - from people who weren’t even there! « info-fetishist http://acrlog.org/2008/06/06/peer-to-peer-review-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82990 LOTW follow-up - from people who weren’t even there! « info-fetishist Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:33:52 +0000 http://acrlog.org/?p=813#comment-82990 [...] ACRLog, Barbara Fister brings up the issue of promotion and tenure, and how many committees find it difficult to evaluate the significance of publications that [...] [...] ACRLog, Barbara Fister brings up the issue of promotion and tenure, and how many committees find it difficult to evaluate the significance of publications that [...]

]]> By: Barbara http://acrlog.org/2008/06/06/peer-to-peer-review-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82948 Barbara Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:51:07 +0000 http://acrlog.org/?p=813#comment-82948 Agreed, and your <a>article</a> is one I've often recommended on that subject. Still, I think it's strange that we think students should learn to evaluate the validity of sources and yet we dodge that responsibility when we're on a P&T committee. (Not my discipline; I have to defer to the experts.) I would like to see some way to factor solid, useful, significant web projects into an academic's portfolio - but I don't think we need to create a cumbersome replication of traditional peer review to do that. Nor should only web projects that are so arcane that only a PhD in the field can make any sense of them be considered more worthy than ones that have a wider potential readership. But <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/22660505" rel="nofollow"> Boyer</a> already made that point much better many years ago. Agreed, and your article is one I’ve often recommended on that subject. Still, I think it’s strange that we think students should learn to evaluate the validity of sources and yet we dodge that responsibility when we’re on a P&T committee. (Not my discipline; I have to defer to the experts.) I would like to see some way to factor solid, useful, significant web projects into an academic’s portfolio – but I don’t think we need to create a cumbersome replication of traditional peer review to do that. Nor should only web projects that are so arcane that only a PhD in the field can make any sense of them be considered more worthy than ones that have a wider potential readership.

But Boyer already made that point much better many years ago.

]]> By: Marc Meola http://acrlog.org/2008/06/06/peer-to-peer-review-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82920 Marc Meola Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:19:42 +0000 http://acrlog.org/?p=813#comment-82920 Peer review is not infallible, but it saves time, for individual researchers and tenure committees. No one can critically evaluate everything. Knowing which authorities to trust is also a research skill, one that often gets short shrift over so-called "critical thinking skills." If you listen to most librarians, critical thinking about web sites is checking the url and looking for spelling mistakes. It's much more complicated. Peer review is not infallible, but it saves time, for individual researchers and tenure committees. No one can critically evaluate everything. Knowing which authorities to trust is also a research skill, one that often gets short shrift over so-called “critical thinking skills.” If you listen to most librarians, critical thinking about web sites is checking the url and looking for spelling mistakes. It’s much more complicated.

]]> By: LOEX of the West presentation, 2008 « info-fetishist http://acrlog.org/2008/06/06/peer-to-peer-review-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82635 LOEX of the West presentation, 2008 « info-fetishist Sun, 08 Jun 2008 03:27:48 +0000 http://acrlog.org/?p=813#comment-82635 [...] about the challenges of evaluating online publications.  See also Barbara’s post at ACRLog: Peer (to Peer) Review. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)AAMC Response to Peer Review RFICanada Dispenses [...] [...] about the challenges of evaluating online publications.  See also Barbara’s post at ACRLog: Peer (to Peer) Review. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)AAMC Response to Peer Review RFICanada Dispenses [...]

]]> By: Michael http://acrlog.org/2008/06/06/peer-to-peer-review-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82599 Michael Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:14:20 +0000 http://acrlog.org/?p=813#comment-82599 Kudos, well spoken. Kudos, well spoken.

]]>