An interesting aspect of contemporary science is that the fast-paced development of new research combined with alternative platforms for disseminating findings (e.g., blogs and social media) mean that research frequently gets exposure, feedback, criticism, praise, journalistic attention, citations, and even replication long before it passes through a traditional peer review process. As I’ve written before, this means that research is effectively being peer reviewed more quickly and more broadly than ever before. Rather than peer review coming primarily through the institutionalized form of anonymous vetting by anonymous reviewers, peer review now entails public, discursive, and cumulative engagement with research. Many have criticized this reviewing transition for being too fast, too open, too informal, and too critical. Those criticisms aside, fast, public peer review seems here to stay. My question today is therefore: what does this mean for traditional journals?...continue reading
Except where noted, this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Views expressed are solely my own, not those of any current, past, or future employer.