This document discusses peer review and proposes moving away from the traditional closed peer review system towards a more open and collaborative peer-to-peer review model. It argues that the current peer review system focuses too much on gatekeeping and maintaining the status quo. An open peer-to-peer review system would allow for more voices and perspectives, act as a conversation between authors and reviewers, and help filter out the best feedback and criticisms through "reviewing the reviewers". The document concludes by thanking the reader and encouraging moving towards more open and collaborative forms of scholarly review.
A presentation on co-authorship, based on advice from Janet Goodall, an academic published author. Covers why you might choose to co-author and how to be a good co-author.
This is my attempt at an introduction to data ethics for mathematicians. Mathematicians increasingly need to deal with these kinds of issues, but we don't have the tradition of ethics training from other disciplines.
I welcome comments on how to improve these slides. Did I miss any salient points? Do you want to offer a different perspective on any of these? Do you want to offer any counterpoints? (Please e-mail me directly with comments and suggestions.)
Eventually, I hope to develop these slides further into an article for a venue aimed at mathematical scientists, and of course I would love to have knowledgeable coauthors who can offer a different perspective from mine.
Information Fluency Strategies and Practices to Help Enhance Critical Thinkin...St. Petersburg College
Ā
Information fluency is the intersection of information literacy, computer literacy and critical thinking and is a āmustā for participants of the 21st century. Mairn explores a variety of resources, research tools, and tips that can be integrated into course management systems and/or traditional classroom settings to help build fluency and develop critical thinking. These tools range from using real-time web/mobile services like Twitter to using conventional econtent more creatively and other tools/services to construct a learning environment ā online or face-to-face ā that is conducive to information discovery, sharing, and lifelong learning.
The discussion in this module will be focused on the idea of truth. .docxbob8allen25075
Ā
The discussion in this module will be focused on the idea of truth. Determining the truth is paramount to determining the soundness of an argument. Ā To falsify a premise is to disprove an entire argument but as a class, a thinking community, we have to agree on how we verify or falsify a truth. We will extract our criteria for determining truth in part from this discussion.Ā To begin with we might consider how to evaluate:Ā
1) SourcesĀ
2) Observations
3) Quantitative data (percentages, statistics, graphs, surveys, etc)
4) Other types of information
Ā First, for context and some ideas, read this article inĀ
Lifehacker on finding the truthĀ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
. Ā Keep in mind this is not an authoritative text on determining the truth to stimulate your thinking and you should not feel obliged to agree with any of it.
Instructions: Ā You will a submit a minimum of 3 posts to this discussion:
1) Ā The first will be your opinion as to how we should determine the truth for at least items 1,2 & 3 above and you can add anything you think is missing. Ā It should be very clear from your post how we will determine truth and you should have a sound justification for your position, in fact you should phrase your suggestions like an argument with premises and conclusions. This must be done by the first due date and the last 2 must be complete before the discussion closes.
2) Comment of 2 of your peers posts offering some improvement or support for their arguments. Simply stating that you agree or disagree is not enough to count as a comment.Ā
3) After surveying the discussion write a summary of what you think are the best ideas presented.
Oh:
I think how we determine the truth is by looking at where the information is coming from. For instance, magazines on actors, actresses, and singers often use rumors and unspecific sources to put in their articles to create a story. The story they create may or may not be the truth but that would be up to the reader. More than often, we as the readers of these magazines find the information to only be partially true because their next issue would have an article slightly contradicting the last thing they wrote about on the person. When we find these little mistakes here and there, we come to the conclusion that maybe this magazine should be read with the thought in mind that what you read will not be the full truth.
When getting research information from an academic journal for your paper, it is more reliable compared to getting information from Wikipedia. Many of us who have done research papers were told never to use Wikipedia. The reason being is that, Wikipedia is an information filled website but is also known to hold information that could be added and changed by just anyone. On the other hand, an academic journal is often written by someone with credentials and have taken the time to research the topic they published.
Information based on observations and quantitative d.
Purpose:
- To introduce you to the need to properly research topics using online resources (although āGoogleā is now a verb, it isnāt research)
- To equip you with the tools to critically evaluate research found online
- To enable your professional growth as a lifelong learner
Learning Objectives
At the end of this lecture the student should be able to:
- Perform complex searches using Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia and other tools
- Outline the benefits of bookmarking and research tools such as Delicio.us, Digg, and Stumbleupon, and use these tools
- Evaluate research found online for quality
- Properly cite and record online research when you find it using tools such as Evernote or OneNote
NASW Workshop: The Secret Life of Social MediaDennis Meredith
Ā
What you think you know about social media is probably wrong. This session will discuss how these tools actually operate, often at odds with promoted functions. Based on data collected and analyzed by panelists and online science publications, we will discuss Digg, reddit, StumbleUpon, Slashdot, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media tools (with background materials for the uninitiated).
4Stein, Scott, Albert DiBartolomeo, and Kathleen Volk Miller, .docxgilbertkpeters11344
Ā
4
Stein, Scott, Albert DiBartolomeo, and Kathleen Volk Miller, eds. The 33rd: An Anthology. Philadelphia: Drexel Publishing Group, 2011. Print.
Freshman Writing | 45-49
Honorable Mention
Daniel Sullivan
Text Messaging and Conflict Resolution: What Does That Emoticon Mean?
Dan: What do you think; is text messaging a viable means for conflict resolution?
World: No, text messaging is for short messages only, not confrontations or debate.
Dan: I agree that was the intended purpose, but it has progressed over time. What are people using it for now?
World: According to a survey in 2004, people are asking questions and sending reminders, not having conversations (Faulkner).
Dan: From my research in 2010, Iāve found the most common uses to be event planning and gossip/casual conversation, categories with a āback and forth.ā
World: Argh, Iāll give you that. But what about people using texting as a security blanket? Itās destroying the closeness of mankind! (Pressner)
Dan: What about people using texting for āromantic interactions?ā And whoās to say people canāt be close over non-verbal communications?
World: Or what about the fact that itās difficult for people to get their meaning across in text? (Pressner)
Dan: Actually, people think they get their meaning across.
World: Wah? But whole relationships have fallen apart from misunderstandings! (Pressner)
Dan: Then maybe it depends on other factors?
World: Well, like what?
That is the question. In my daily life, text messaging is a core component of my communications with others. I use it for everything from planning events to casual conversation and getting help on homework; but I also use it to flesh out issues with my partner and others close to me. Recently, I have wondered why we have turned to text messaging for the majority of our conflicts. Prior to doing outside research, I created a few theories as to why, for some, text messaging is a more accessible means of conflict resolution. Due to text messagingās limit of 160 characters, people have to make their arguments concise and to the point. It might also be easier for people who are shy, since they have time to formulate what they want to say, instead of feeling intimidated by a face-to-face conversation.
To see how texting can be used, we must first look at how it has been used. A 2004 study at London South Bank University examined who used texting, and why. Their results showed that those who are younger tend to send and receive a greater number of messages than those who are older (Faulkner). The study also looked at what kinds of messages were sent and found that the majority of texts were asking questions, sending farewells, and sending personal information.
In order to gain a broader perspective, I conducted my own study, in the form of an online survey. There were a total of 389 responses. After analyzing the data, and comparing it to Faulknerās survey, there are drastic differences. The first is the percentage who text. According t.
Tell your story: promoting yourself and your research onlineJo Hawkins
Ā
With more and more employers using Google to screen job candidates, establishing a strong online presence is now one of the most powerful ways to gain a competitive advantage in the job market. This presentation explores common concerns that prevent academics from promoting their research online, and outlines how to develop a communications strategy that will allow you to tell your story to a global audience, build a community around your research, and become an influencer in your discipline area.
Researcher KnowHow: Ethical peer review with Chris Graf from COPELivUniLibrary
Ā
We were fortunate to have Chris Graf from COPE delivering a session on ethical peer review as part of the Researcher KnowHow programme. Here's his slides.
Nikolas Badminton loves to think about the future. In 2014 people started calling him a futurist. This was probably because he had been talking about the strange future of sex, the Internet of Things in 2020, why software is sexier than advertising, creativity, the collaborative economy, the #thefutureofwork, industrial wearables, surveillance, psychedelics, the connected society, and the quality of life we have with technology
Also available on Google Play - https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=UeqZBgAAQBAJ
About Nikolas Badminton:
I was born with a curious mind and a restlessness that means that like to engage people. I work with start-ups and brands alike in developing innovative, fresh thinking in product and solution development for mobile/social/digital consumer engagement.
I also judge creative awards shows, develop social media courses, guest lecture Universities and contribute regularly to publications and speak regularly at conferences across North America, including SXSW, ICSC, Marketing Magazine, Deloitte, and BCAMA. In addition to that, I write for The Huffington Post and curates events related to tech, culture and humanity, including Cyborg Camp YVR, From Now, PRODUCT YVR and DARK FUTURES.
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and SalesLaura Byrne
Ā
Clients donāt know what they donāt know. What web solutions are right for them? How does WordPress come into the picture? How do you make sure you understand scope and timeline? What do you do if sometime changes?
All these questions and more will be explored as we talk about matching clientsā needs with what your agency offers without pulling teeth or pulling your hair out. Practical tips, and strategies for successful relationship building that leads to closing the deal.
A presentation on co-authorship, based on advice from Janet Goodall, an academic published author. Covers why you might choose to co-author and how to be a good co-author.
This is my attempt at an introduction to data ethics for mathematicians. Mathematicians increasingly need to deal with these kinds of issues, but we don't have the tradition of ethics training from other disciplines.
I welcome comments on how to improve these slides. Did I miss any salient points? Do you want to offer a different perspective on any of these? Do you want to offer any counterpoints? (Please e-mail me directly with comments and suggestions.)
Eventually, I hope to develop these slides further into an article for a venue aimed at mathematical scientists, and of course I would love to have knowledgeable coauthors who can offer a different perspective from mine.
Information Fluency Strategies and Practices to Help Enhance Critical Thinkin...St. Petersburg College
Ā
Information fluency is the intersection of information literacy, computer literacy and critical thinking and is a āmustā for participants of the 21st century. Mairn explores a variety of resources, research tools, and tips that can be integrated into course management systems and/or traditional classroom settings to help build fluency and develop critical thinking. These tools range from using real-time web/mobile services like Twitter to using conventional econtent more creatively and other tools/services to construct a learning environment ā online or face-to-face ā that is conducive to information discovery, sharing, and lifelong learning.
The discussion in this module will be focused on the idea of truth. .docxbob8allen25075
Ā
The discussion in this module will be focused on the idea of truth. Determining the truth is paramount to determining the soundness of an argument. Ā To falsify a premise is to disprove an entire argument but as a class, a thinking community, we have to agree on how we verify or falsify a truth. We will extract our criteria for determining truth in part from this discussion.Ā To begin with we might consider how to evaluate:Ā
1) SourcesĀ
2) Observations
3) Quantitative data (percentages, statistics, graphs, surveys, etc)
4) Other types of information
Ā First, for context and some ideas, read this article inĀ
Lifehacker on finding the truthĀ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
. Ā Keep in mind this is not an authoritative text on determining the truth to stimulate your thinking and you should not feel obliged to agree with any of it.
Instructions: Ā You will a submit a minimum of 3 posts to this discussion:
1) Ā The first will be your opinion as to how we should determine the truth for at least items 1,2 & 3 above and you can add anything you think is missing. Ā It should be very clear from your post how we will determine truth and you should have a sound justification for your position, in fact you should phrase your suggestions like an argument with premises and conclusions. This must be done by the first due date and the last 2 must be complete before the discussion closes.
2) Comment of 2 of your peers posts offering some improvement or support for their arguments. Simply stating that you agree or disagree is not enough to count as a comment.Ā
3) After surveying the discussion write a summary of what you think are the best ideas presented.
Oh:
I think how we determine the truth is by looking at where the information is coming from. For instance, magazines on actors, actresses, and singers often use rumors and unspecific sources to put in their articles to create a story. The story they create may or may not be the truth but that would be up to the reader. More than often, we as the readers of these magazines find the information to only be partially true because their next issue would have an article slightly contradicting the last thing they wrote about on the person. When we find these little mistakes here and there, we come to the conclusion that maybe this magazine should be read with the thought in mind that what you read will not be the full truth.
When getting research information from an academic journal for your paper, it is more reliable compared to getting information from Wikipedia. Many of us who have done research papers were told never to use Wikipedia. The reason being is that, Wikipedia is an information filled website but is also known to hold information that could be added and changed by just anyone. On the other hand, an academic journal is often written by someone with credentials and have taken the time to research the topic they published.
Information based on observations and quantitative d.
Purpose:
- To introduce you to the need to properly research topics using online resources (although āGoogleā is now a verb, it isnāt research)
- To equip you with the tools to critically evaluate research found online
- To enable your professional growth as a lifelong learner
Learning Objectives
At the end of this lecture the student should be able to:
- Perform complex searches using Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia and other tools
- Outline the benefits of bookmarking and research tools such as Delicio.us, Digg, and Stumbleupon, and use these tools
- Evaluate research found online for quality
- Properly cite and record online research when you find it using tools such as Evernote or OneNote
NASW Workshop: The Secret Life of Social MediaDennis Meredith
Ā
What you think you know about social media is probably wrong. This session will discuss how these tools actually operate, often at odds with promoted functions. Based on data collected and analyzed by panelists and online science publications, we will discuss Digg, reddit, StumbleUpon, Slashdot, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media tools (with background materials for the uninitiated).
4Stein, Scott, Albert DiBartolomeo, and Kathleen Volk Miller, .docxgilbertkpeters11344
Ā
4
Stein, Scott, Albert DiBartolomeo, and Kathleen Volk Miller, eds. The 33rd: An Anthology. Philadelphia: Drexel Publishing Group, 2011. Print.
Freshman Writing | 45-49
Honorable Mention
Daniel Sullivan
Text Messaging and Conflict Resolution: What Does That Emoticon Mean?
Dan: What do you think; is text messaging a viable means for conflict resolution?
World: No, text messaging is for short messages only, not confrontations or debate.
Dan: I agree that was the intended purpose, but it has progressed over time. What are people using it for now?
World: According to a survey in 2004, people are asking questions and sending reminders, not having conversations (Faulkner).
Dan: From my research in 2010, Iāve found the most common uses to be event planning and gossip/casual conversation, categories with a āback and forth.ā
World: Argh, Iāll give you that. But what about people using texting as a security blanket? Itās destroying the closeness of mankind! (Pressner)
Dan: What about people using texting for āromantic interactions?ā And whoās to say people canāt be close over non-verbal communications?
World: Or what about the fact that itās difficult for people to get their meaning across in text? (Pressner)
Dan: Actually, people think they get their meaning across.
World: Wah? But whole relationships have fallen apart from misunderstandings! (Pressner)
Dan: Then maybe it depends on other factors?
World: Well, like what?
That is the question. In my daily life, text messaging is a core component of my communications with others. I use it for everything from planning events to casual conversation and getting help on homework; but I also use it to flesh out issues with my partner and others close to me. Recently, I have wondered why we have turned to text messaging for the majority of our conflicts. Prior to doing outside research, I created a few theories as to why, for some, text messaging is a more accessible means of conflict resolution. Due to text messagingās limit of 160 characters, people have to make their arguments concise and to the point. It might also be easier for people who are shy, since they have time to formulate what they want to say, instead of feeling intimidated by a face-to-face conversation.
To see how texting can be used, we must first look at how it has been used. A 2004 study at London South Bank University examined who used texting, and why. Their results showed that those who are younger tend to send and receive a greater number of messages than those who are older (Faulkner). The study also looked at what kinds of messages were sent and found that the majority of texts were asking questions, sending farewells, and sending personal information.
In order to gain a broader perspective, I conducted my own study, in the form of an online survey. There were a total of 389 responses. After analyzing the data, and comparing it to Faulknerās survey, there are drastic differences. The first is the percentage who text. According t.
Tell your story: promoting yourself and your research onlineJo Hawkins
Ā
With more and more employers using Google to screen job candidates, establishing a strong online presence is now one of the most powerful ways to gain a competitive advantage in the job market. This presentation explores common concerns that prevent academics from promoting their research online, and outlines how to develop a communications strategy that will allow you to tell your story to a global audience, build a community around your research, and become an influencer in your discipline area.
Researcher KnowHow: Ethical peer review with Chris Graf from COPELivUniLibrary
Ā
We were fortunate to have Chris Graf from COPE delivering a session on ethical peer review as part of the Researcher KnowHow programme. Here's his slides.
Nikolas Badminton loves to think about the future. In 2014 people started calling him a futurist. This was probably because he had been talking about the strange future of sex, the Internet of Things in 2020, why software is sexier than advertising, creativity, the collaborative economy, the #thefutureofwork, industrial wearables, surveillance, psychedelics, the connected society, and the quality of life we have with technology
Also available on Google Play - https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=UeqZBgAAQBAJ
About Nikolas Badminton:
I was born with a curious mind and a restlessness that means that like to engage people. I work with start-ups and brands alike in developing innovative, fresh thinking in product and solution development for mobile/social/digital consumer engagement.
I also judge creative awards shows, develop social media courses, guest lecture Universities and contribute regularly to publications and speak regularly at conferences across North America, including SXSW, ICSC, Marketing Magazine, Deloitte, and BCAMA. In addition to that, I write for The Huffington Post and curates events related to tech, culture and humanity, including Cyborg Camp YVR, From Now, PRODUCT YVR and DARK FUTURES.
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and SalesLaura Byrne
Ā
Clients donāt know what they donāt know. What web solutions are right for them? How does WordPress come into the picture? How do you make sure you understand scope and timeline? What do you do if sometime changes?
All these questions and more will be explored as we talk about matching clientsā needs with what your agency offers without pulling teeth or pulling your hair out. Practical tips, and strategies for successful relationship building that leads to closing the deal.
GDG Cloud Southlake #33: Boule & Rebala: Effective AppSec in SDLC using Deplo...James Anderson
Ā
Effective Application Security in Software Delivery lifecycle using Deployment Firewall and DBOM
The modern software delivery process (or the CI/CD process) includes many tools, distributed teams, open-source code, and cloud platforms. Constant focus on speed to release software to market, along with the traditional slow and manual security checks has caused gaps in continuous security as an important piece in the software supply chain. Today organizations feel more susceptible to external and internal cyber threats due to the vast attack surface in their applications supply chain and the lack of end-to-end governance and risk management.
The software team must secure its software delivery process to avoid vulnerability and security breaches. This needs to be achieved with existing tool chains and without extensive rework of the delivery processes. This talk will present strategies and techniques for providing visibility into the true risk of the existing vulnerabilities, preventing the introduction of security issues in the software, resolving vulnerabilities in production environments quickly, and capturing the deployment bill of materials (DBOM).
Speakers:
Bob Boule
Robert Boule is a technology enthusiast with PASSION for technology and making things work along with a knack for helping others understand how things work. He comes with around 20 years of solution engineering experience in application security, software continuous delivery, and SaaS platforms. He is known for his dynamic presentations in CI/CD and application security integrated in software delivery lifecycle.
Gopinath Rebala
Gopinath Rebala is the CTO of OpsMx, where he has overall responsibility for the machine learning and data processing architectures for Secure Software Delivery. Gopi also has a strong connection with our customers, leading design and architecture for strategic implementations. Gopi is a frequent speaker and well-known leader in continuous delivery and integrating security into software delivery.
Smart TV Buyer Insights Survey 2024 by 91mobiles.pdf91mobiles
Ā
91mobiles recently conducted a Smart TV Buyer Insights Survey in which we asked over 3,000 respondents about the TV they own, aspects they look at on a new TV, and their TV buying preferences.
Welcome to the first live UiPath Community Day Dubai! Join us for this unique occasion to meet our local and global UiPath Community and leaders. You will get a full view of the MEA region's automation landscape and the AI Powered automation technology capabilities of UiPath. Also, hosted by our local partners Marc Ellis, you will enjoy a half-day packed with industry insights and automation peers networking.
š Curious on our agenda? Wait no more!
10:00 Welcome note - UiPath Community in Dubai
Lovely Sinha, UiPath Community Chapter Leader, UiPath MVPx3, Hyper-automation Consultant, First Abu Dhabi Bank
10:20 A UiPath cross-region MEA overview
Ashraf El Zarka, VP and Managing Director MEA, UiPath
10:35: Customer Success Journey
Deepthi Deepak, Head of Intelligent Automation CoE, First Abu Dhabi Bank
11:15 The UiPath approach to GenAI with our three principles: improve accuracy, supercharge productivity, and automate more
Boris Krumrey, Global VP, Automation Innovation, UiPath
12:15 To discover how Marc Ellis leverages tech-driven solutions in recruitment and managed services.
Brendan Lingam, Director of Sales and Business Development, Marc Ellis
Alt. GDG Cloud Southlake #33: Boule & Rebala: Effective AppSec in SDLC using ...James Anderson
Ā
Effective Application Security in Software Delivery lifecycle using Deployment Firewall and DBOM
The modern software delivery process (or the CI/CD process) includes many tools, distributed teams, open-source code, and cloud platforms. Constant focus on speed to release software to market, along with the traditional slow and manual security checks has caused gaps in continuous security as an important piece in the software supply chain. Today organizations feel more susceptible to external and internal cyber threats due to the vast attack surface in their applications supply chain and the lack of end-to-end governance and risk management.
The software team must secure its software delivery process to avoid vulnerability and security breaches. This needs to be achieved with existing tool chains and without extensive rework of the delivery processes. This talk will present strategies and techniques for providing visibility into the true risk of the existing vulnerabilities, preventing the introduction of security issues in the software, resolving vulnerabilities in production environments quickly, and capturing the deployment bill of materials (DBOM).
Speakers:
Bob Boule
Robert Boule is a technology enthusiast with PASSION for technology and making things work along with a knack for helping others understand how things work. He comes with around 20 years of solution engineering experience in application security, software continuous delivery, and SaaS platforms. He is known for his dynamic presentations in CI/CD and application security integrated in software delivery lifecycle.
Gopinath Rebala
Gopinath Rebala is the CTO of OpsMx, where he has overall responsibility for the machine learning and data processing architectures for Secure Software Delivery. Gopi also has a strong connection with our customers, leading design and architecture for strategic implementations. Gopi is a frequent speaker and well-known leader in continuous delivery and integrating security into software delivery.
Generative AI Deep Dive: Advancing from Proof of Concept to ProductionAggregage
Ā
Join Maher Hanafi, VP of Engineering at Betterworks, in this new session where he'll share a practical framework to transform Gen AI prototypes into impactful products! He'll delve into the complexities of data collection and management, model selection and optimization, and ensuring security, scalability, and responsible use.
GraphRAG is All You need? LLM & Knowledge GraphGuy Korland
Ā
Guy Korland, CEO and Co-founder of FalkorDB, will review two articles on the integration of language models with knowledge graphs.
1. Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08302
2. Microsoft Research's GraphRAG paper and a review paper on various uses of knowledge graphs:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/graphrag-unlocking-llm-discovery-on-narrative-private-data/
In his public lecture, Christian Timmerer provides insights into the fascinating history of video streaming, starting from its humble beginnings before YouTube to the groundbreaking technologies that now dominate platforms like Netflix and ORF ON. Timmerer also presents provocative contributions of his own that have significantly influenced the industry. He concludes by looking at future challenges and invites the audience to join in a discussion.
Pushing the limits of ePRTC: 100ns holdover for 100 daysAdtran
Ā
At WSTS 2024, Alon Stern explored the topic of parametric holdover and explained how recent research findings can be implemented in real-world PNT networks to achieve 100 nanoseconds of accuracy for up to 100 days.
Elevating Tactical DDD Patterns Through Object CalisthenicsDorra BARTAGUIZ
Ā
After immersing yourself in the blue book and its red counterpart, attending DDD-focused conferences, and applying tactical patterns, you're left with a crucial question: How do I ensure my design is effective? Tactical patterns within Domain-Driven Design (DDD) serve as guiding principles for creating clear and manageable domain models. However, achieving success with these patterns requires additional guidance. Interestingly, we've observed that a set of constraints initially designed for training purposes remarkably aligns with effective pattern implementation, offering a more āmechanicalā approach. Let's explore together how Object Calisthenics can elevate the design of your tactical DDD patterns, offering concrete help for those venturing into DDD for the first time!
26. āWe have an ample history to tell us that
justice is ill served by secrecy. And so it is
with peer review. Two or three hundred
years ago, scientiļ¬c papers and letters were
often anonymous. We now regard that as
quaint and primitive. I hope that in 20 years,
thatās exactly how we will look on our
present system of peer review.ā
ā Drummond Rennie
36. āthe blog-based review form not only brings in
more voices (which may identify more potential
issues), and not only provides some āreview of the
reviewsā (with reviewers weighing in on the issues
raised by others), but is also, crucially, a
conversation (my proposals for a quick ļ¬x to the
discussion of one example helped unearth the
breadth and seriousness of the larger issues with
the section).ā
ā Noah Wardrip-Fruin
-- talk draws heavily upon a chapter in my book manuscript
[title], as well as the process of open review which the book is currently undergoing. It also draws on my experiences working with
MediaCommons, a digital scholarly publishing network focused on media studies. One of the reasons I started thinking about the issues I’m talking about today, and one of the reasons I wrote that book, was precisely because everytime I mentioned this project, somebody asked me
“What are you going to do about peer review?” I’ve said in other venues that peer review is the axle around which the entire issue of digital scholarly publishing threatens to get wrapped, like Isadora Duncan’s scarf, choking the life out of any system before it can get going
-- peer review is the sine qua non of the academy, but we must begin thinking about peer review differently
-- the chapter thus begins with a couple of longish epigraphs, but the talk just has one short one
-- Cathy Davidson, blogging about peer review at HASTAC
-- key issue in thinking about the future of peer review is its role in authorizing academic work; important because the nature of authority is dramatically shifting in the age of the digital network
-- scholars intensely interested in such shifts as they affect media production, distribution, and consumption (see Vaidhyanathan, Jenkins, Benkler)
-- but thinking about such shifts w/r/t our own work makes us profoundly nervous; see often overblown panic surrounding Wikipedia, as well as general conviction that “anyone could publish anything online”
-- but refusing to engage with the question of shifts in intellectual authority is dangerous, too
-- because a blind resistance to the dominant ways of knowing of networked culture threatens the academy with a deepening cultural obsolescence
-- clinging to an outdated system for the establishment and measurement of authority may produce an even more pronounced sense of our irrelevance in contemporary culture
-- we need to find ways to better implement conventional peer review within digital publishing structures; peer-reviewed journals online are of equivalent value to peer-reviewed journals in print; in fact, such an equation is part of the problem I’m addressing
-- Imposing traditional methods of peer-review on digital publishing might help the transition in the short-term, but will hobble us in the long-term
-- we must find ways to work with, to improve, and to adapt web-native modes of authorization for scholarly use
-- we must find ways to convince ourselves, our colleagues, and our institutions of the value of such systems
-- the kind of structure we don’t like to look too closely at; those of us empowered to change systems have become empowered precisely through our success in navigating the status quo
-- and we work in a very tradition-bound milieu; as a senior colleague once told me, the motto of my institution (and, I’d argue, the motto of the academy more broadly) might well be
-- before we leap in to defend the ways things have always been done, it might be worth exploring those traditions more closely
-- in the chapter, I have a long section on the history of peer review which I’m now going to boil down rather appallingly
Peer review as we know it today comes into existence in 1752, when the Royal Society of London institutes a “Committee on Papers” to oversee the review and selection of texts for publication in its journal, Philosophical Transactions. The independent outside review of manuscripts for publication quickly becomes the norm.
-- peer review didn’t really become universalized, even in the hard sciences, until the middle of the twentieth century (Science and The Journal of the American Medical Association didn’t use outside reviewers until the 1940s)
-- suggesting that the history of peer review is far shorter than we may think
-- Mario Biagioli argues that editorial peer review begins with book publishing, not journal publishing, developing out of state censorship practices surrounding the royal license required for the legal sale of printed texts in the 16th and 17th centuries, meant to prevent heresy or sedition,
-- such censorship was delegated to the Royal Society upon its founding via the royal imprimatur; in order to receive continued royal support, the Society was required to take responsibility for anything printed under its aegis
-- peer review thus begins as review by a peer of the realm; the transfer of authority from crown to Royal Society develops into self-censorship, as members of Royal Society were dependent upon the crown for their livelihoods
-- gradually becomes disciplinary technology (in Foucauldian sense) as the self-policing becomes fully internalized, both organizing our knowledge and setting the limits of the thinkable
-- peer review thus sheds literal connections to the state and to censorship, shifts from an imprimatur that is about royal approval to one about technical accuracy, but it is still about policing the boundaries of acceptable discourse
-- because of the role peer review plays in authorizing our academic lives, it has become so intractably established that we cannot imagine a future without it, and we have a hard time imagining any way that it could possibly change
-- attempts to imagine such change are often choked off before they can take root, which is of course not to say that there have been no such experiments; the most famous of them is...
-- limited experiment run by Nature in parallel open v. closed peer review between June and Dec. 2006: “authors may opt to have their submitted manuscripts posted publicly for comment. Any scientist may then post comments, provided they identify themselves. Once the usual confidential peer review process is complete, the public ‘open peer review’ process will be closed. Editors will then read all comments on the manuscript and invite authors to respond. At the end of the process, as part of the trial, editors will assess the value of the public comments.”
-- statistics cited by editors do indicate problems...
-- only 5% of authors who submitted work during the trial agreed to have their papers opened to public comment; of those papers, only 54% (or 38 out of a total of 71) received substantive comments. And as Linda Miller, the executive editor of Nature, told a reporter for Science News, the comments that the articles received weren’t as thorough as the official reviews: “They’re generally not the kind of comments that editors can make a decision on.”
-- was the experiment set up to fail? online review was wholly optional, and editors stressed that it would have no bearing whatsoever on decisions to publish
-- no impetus created for authors to open papers to review; no incentive created for commenters to participate; why go to all the effort of reading and commenting if it serves no identifiable purpose?
-- in fact, though, it’s clear from the web debate that Nature’s experiment was hardly groundbreaking; lots of working models of open review, as I discuss at length in the full paper
-- models highlight two different purposes that peer review is imagined to serve: fostering discussion and feedback amongst scholars, with the aim of strengthening the work they produce; providing a mechanism through which that work can be filtered for quality
-- highlights comparatively conservative move in Nature’s open review trial
-- conservative precisely because it tried to hold onto a gatekeeping model of peer review while it experimented with getting rid of anonymity
-- here I have a long section on the uses and abuses of anonymity in the peer review process, and the many many studies that have been written about the problems it poses, concluding with a comment from Drummond Rennie, writing in Cardiovascular Research in 1994:
-- why are the most important conversations about any scholar’s work taking place in the backchannel, between reviewers and editors, in ways that prevent the scholar from participating or responding?
-- question means to suggest that peer-review in and of itself isn’t the problem -- being reviewed and assessed by one’s peers ought to be a good thing; the problem is in the methods we use, which are at best obscure and at worst corrupt
-- what we want to do is make the important work that peer review does better, by bringing it out into the open
-- if our methods of peer review are becoming quaint and primitive in the network era, where does the future lie?
-- begin by posing a set of hypotheticals...
-- ...we separate credentialing from peer review?
-- and there’s an entire paper in the current tie between these two concepts, of course, but in short, what if we forget about peer review as a means through which tenure committees and administrations can have an easy binary marker of the quality of faculty work and instead allow peer review to focus on the work itself, and the scholars who are doing that work?
what if peer review abandons pre-publication gatekeeping and instead focuses on post-publication filtering?
the need for gatekeeping is the hallmark of an economy of scarcity, in which a limited number of pages, a limited number of journals, and a limited number of books can be published each year.
Such competition is no longer necessary in the internet’s economy of abundance; what we need instead are means of dealing with that abundance, of dealing with a digital sphere which, as Cory Doctorow has said, “isn’t a tragedy of the commons; this is a commons where the sheep shit grass -- where the more you graze, the more commons you get.”
What we need are means of filtering that commons, of finding the right material, of the right quality, at the right time.
what if peer review learns from community filtering systems such as Slashdot and Digg, and becomes “peer-to-peer review”?
-- this implies another shift in the notion of a “peer”; in the Enlightenment, the concept of a “peer” gradually shifted its reference from a member of the royal court to a scholarly colleague; “peer” in the network age is used to refer to any node on that network
-- this latter notion of “peer” requires us to think about who is authorized to participate in the network, and how the network might function as a scholarly community
-- recent experiment with community-based review; Noah published manuscript of book-in-progress to his co-authored blog, at the same time MIT Press sent the manuscript out for traditional peer review
-- despite tenor of press coverage, not imagined as “head-to-head” competition between open and closed review, but a means for Noah to get feedback from a community he trusts
-- that trust derives in part from the fact that, as Noah noted, “the blog commentaries will have been through a social process that, in some ways, will probably make me trust them more.” This social process is the key to community review and filtering; peer-to-peer review isn’t a free-for-all, but a networked structure within which the community becomes responsible for maintenance and enforcement of its own standards
-- any filtering system is only as good as its standards; in a computational system, those standards are embodied in its algorithm -- you cannot really understand the results you get from Google unless you know something about how PageRank works, what criteria it uses in promoting or demoting certain results
-- in a human filtering system, the most important thing to have information about is not the data being filtered, but the human filter itself
-- and thus, in a peer-to-peer review system, the critical activity is not the review of the texts being published, but the review of the reviewers
-- and this is the most important task we’re imagining for the new peer-to-peer review system we’re developing for MediaCommons
-- image is of the profile system we’re about to open
-- thinking about the project not as the digital scholarly press of the future but instead as a digital scholarly network requires us to think primarily about the social aspects of this network and its role in creating a network of trust between authors and reviewers
-- backbone of this network is a peer-to-peer system that will gather the work members are doing on MediaCommons and in other settings
-- features include a networked user profiling system enabling scholars to define their interests in tagable, complexly searchable ways
-- a portfolio system -- a comprehensive record of any user’s writing within the site, both formal and informal, allowing scholars to receive “credit” for certain kinds of academic labor (like peer reviews) that currently remains invisible
-- to come: a recommendations engine that uses both profile information and robust textual analysis to present the user with frequently updated suggestions for texts to read, discussions to participate in, and collaborators to work with
-- and: a reputation system that will allow users of the network to review the reviewers, to assess the “value” of a particular member’s work on behalf of the community
-- there’s much more in this notion of “peer-to-peer review” than I have time to discuss now, given its interactions with recent ideas about networked engagement such as that of the reputation economy and the “long tail,” all of which have in common the attempt to create structures for coping with abundance by drawing upon the social interactions of communities
-- the key things to take away from all of this are that in a network culture in which notions of authority are shifting, we need to think carefully about how we’re assessing and evaluating the work we do in digital settings, in which open is valued over closed, in which filtering is more effective than gatekeeping, and in which standards are most effective when community-based; unless we think about how our own work will be affected by such new models of authority, we run the risk, as Cathy Davidson suggests, of policing ourselves into irrelevance.