• 2016 AA Editor Search
  • Get Ready for the Annual Meeting

    From t-shirts to journals, 2014 Annual Meeting Gear Shop Now
  • Open Anthropology
  • Latest AAA Podcast

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 18,390 other followers

Creative Fundraising Opportunity for Researchers

Today’s guest blog post is by AAA member, Matthew Piscitelli. Matt is a creative anthropology student, who readers may recall his crowd-sourcing efforts for his upcoming research journey to Peru. 

Petridish.org is looking for researchers with interesting project proposals who want to share their work with the world and raise money for their research.

We’re a passionate community of science-lovers and researchers.  Our mission is to increase the funding available to science by engaging the public in new discoveries. Researchers share information about their work on our website, where the public has the opportunity to donate to individual projects.  With your help, we are pioneering a completely new way to fund research.

We’ve recently launched our first group of projects and have already raised over $40,000 for their work.  Once chosen, you will have the opportunity to create and post a short video about your work targeted at the general public.  We will feature high-level overviews of the projects seeking funding on our website and in our media coverage.   Donors contribute to specific projects for the opportunity to build relationships with researchers including frequent updates on their work, and to receive small tokens of appreciation.

Applications are welcome from all disciplines including Anthropology, Astronomy, Archeology, Social Science, Biology, Health, Medicine and more.  Furthermore, while we welcome applications regarding project of all sizes, we are particularly interested in receiving applications for smaller, discrete projects.

It only takes a few minutes to apply.  If interested, please visit www.petridish.org for more information, and click “apply” to submit an inquiry.

Rethinking Peer Review

Running parallel to discussions about toll access vs. open access in academic publishing is a debate about whether it’s time to replace the venerable practice of (mostly anonymous) peer review with something more open, democratic, and dialogical. Web-based publishing software makes this technologically feasible–easy, in fact–and a number of journals are experimenting with it. A fine example of a new journal whose selection process is based on open reviewing is the World Economics Journal. The WEJ‘s description of its reviewing process is a model of clarity. (A hat tip to Rachael Tackett, a student at USF-Tampa, for pointing me toward this example.) As in many such endeavors, though, the proof is in the pudding, and it is by no means clear that such systems are sustainable in practice, especially for journals that receive hundreds of submissions annually.

As we saw in the first discussion of this series, plenty of anthropologists question the wisdom of fiddling with a system of peer review that underlies recognized quality standards, which are of course linked to retention and promotion reviews at academic institutions. But there are other reasons why we might pause before jettisoning peer review in favor of some version of open- or crowd-sourced review. The crucial role of blind reviews in teaching young professionals how to write and argue more effectively has recently been considered by the historian Zachary Schrag in a blog piece worthy of consideration. If you’re in the anthro business long enough, you’re likely to be burned by wrong-headed peer review. But for every instance of negilence, I’m reminded of five in which reviewers and editors provided frank, critical and, above all, useful thoughts about how to strengthen a submission or find it a more appropriate home. How confident are we that such advice would be forthcoming in an open-review system?

Given the nature of the theme, I thought that it would be fun to crowd-source this post. What follows are three observations from members of CFPEP or, in Richard Handler’s case, someone who was recently involved in a CFPEP-sponsored webinar.

From Deborah Nichols, CFPEP chair:  “Nature, among others, conducted an experiment in open review of articles but found that most submissions received no comments or only one. Such an open approach would need to overcome the Lake Woebegon effect with its illusory superiority and the chilling effect of possible recriminations, retaliations, and lawsuits, not unknown in the academy.”

From Oona Schmid, AAA Director of Publishing: “Under the current system (blinded closed pre-publication review) almost all authors who submit relevant work to a journal can anticipate an editorial letter summarizing the comments of several reviewers. However, herding scholars to submit comments can take a long time; and of course these reviewers are uncompensated and don’t get credit for their anonymous contributions. An open system might greatly accelerate the time of publication (possibly reducing as much as 12 months from the process) and of course credits reviewers. I think the tradeoff might be that a large number of worthy ideas might not receive any feedback.  Nature experimented with open review and found that some 11% of the papers received 53% of the comments; 42% received one comment; and 47% received no comment.

From Richard Handler:  “Anthropologists should know that in human life, based as it is in language and culture, there can be no such thing as transparent communication.  Every message, every communication, is culturally and linguistically particular, and ‘thick,’ also.  So the idea that jiggering with the rules of peer-review will lead automatically to greater transparency is misguided.  In a peer-review process, allowing more people to comment, with gate-keeping envisioned in terms of mass society instead of specialized guilds, might lead to some interesting intellectual exchanges.  But it will not yield ‘results’ that are more transparent, more rational, or fairer than the conventional processes by which we currently operate.”

None of these quibbles and objections necessarily preclude experimentation with post-publication crowd-sourcing, although it may take a fair amount of editorial oversight to referee such discussions–yet more work for overworked editors and their staffs (if they have them!).

What do you think?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 18,390 other followers