I think that the traditional approach espoused by Lovejoy(2011) and Fitzpatrick's(2009) evolutionary approach have different merits. If I write an article that is innovative, I might prefer an open peer review. If I am writing an article that relates to an area where traditional expertise is important, I may prefer a more thorough traditional review process. It is unlikely that I would submit an innovative article to a journal that I perceived as being stodgy or old schooled. Such a journal would probably reject my manuscript. It is very likely that the peer review process and the journal's attitude to peer review fit the mandates and interests of the publication itself. A journal that is interested in innovative approaches and ideas, is not going to have articles reviewed by a blind retired professor, age 125, who hates change. The comments offered in the context of an open review are frequently offered off the cuff. The comments can relate to one aspect of the article and not balance particular issues with the whole. A traditional peer review will probably be more comprehensive. The thoughts contained may have matured with time.
I think it is important to view peer reviews as tools available to serve us as writers rather than obstacles to being published. If there is not a publishing option or a peer review process that suits us, then we can choose to self-publish or start our own journal with our own mandates. We all have an individual voice and an individual point of view. We may choose publishing methods and peer review processes that suit us. Publication is, in the end, just a means of communication. Peer review is a means of receiving valuable feedback and input from others. We are in charge of our own work and careers. If the options we want don't exist, we can create them.
On another note, I do not like practical jokes or hoaxes. Usually someone is embarrassed or ridiculed. I prefer direct, kind and courteous ways of making a point.
No comments:
Post a Comment