In Peer Review, Journal Articles, and Blogs – an Example David Lee King takes a look at the slow pace of print, “My article is being published more than two years AFTER the original conversation took place”, and his blog as a peer review tool, “To me, that’s true, useful peer review – instant feedback, criticism, and suggestions from my peers.”
Now compare that with the traditional model of peer review – 2-4 anonymous reviewers who grant the right for an article to be published or not. No discussion, no conversation, no interaction. To respond, one has to either write a letter to the editor or write another article – in which case any true discussion is killed. Which is better peer review?
peer reviewed blogs
Something should be changed. I had a comment from a reviewer telling me to read a specific new study/book. I had read it, and the circumstances were so different to what I was writing about, I did not use it (although they were thematically similar). Did the reviewer actually read this book? How do I dialogue? As it happened, the journal did not accept the article. It was already 8 months since I had submitted the original draft.
blogs vs. “official” peer-reviewed pubs
I never used a single thing I’ve read in an “official” publication in my career. I have used a number of things I read on the good blogs.
I have been a librarian for 10 years, worked in libraries for 15 years and I teach at a library and information studies graduate school.
I also tell my students to avoid them like the plague. Maybe if they’re having trouble sleeping.