FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W137666053> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W137666053 abstract "This paper addresses some of the major shifts in thinking about the nature of publishing and in basic beliefs regarding the peer review process in scholarly communication. Changes in the notion of ownership in the an age of technology are considered. Differences between the referee system with print publications and electronic text are outlined and the shift from the conception of peer review from a summary process to an emergent process is illustrated, noting the public availability of online articles that are in the process of being reviewed and are subject to revision. The plasticity of electronic text opens the way for interactivity as a means for quality control, an approach which views text as an organic, dynamic phenomenon capable of adapting and changing within the context from which it was conceived. The paper concludes with a description of a model of an electronic journal that encompasses both an open studio and a showcase gallery environment for textual artifacts, a model which offers the flexibility needed to implement open, interactive peer review, promising speed and diversity of opinion. (AEF) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Print vs. Online Scholarly Publishing: Notes and reflections on the peer review process oo Martin Ryder Storage Technology Corporation O 4.4 The idea of publishing is a concept which dates back to the Fifteenth Century. The practice was enabled by a collection of several technologies merging together to forge the age of print. Printing effectively transformed society from an oral culture to a culture of literacy (Eisenstein, 1979; Ong, 1982). Today we encounter another collection of technologies which speak of major transformation, promising changes as profound as those which sired the modern age. The postmodern extension of what it means to is a fascinating issue which invites new and creative ideas unconstrained by traditional assumptions. This panel, by the questions it addresses, offers a forum for testing some of the major shifts in our thinking about the nature of publishing, and about our basic beliefs regarding the peer review process. Who owns the text? Print publication requires an outlay of capital for production and dissemination of each published volume. The expense is usually underwritten by a publisher who requires a return on the investment. Because the investment is not trivial, ownership is attached to the work. This secures the rights to any returned value in order to protect the investment. The institution of mass media is sustained on the notion that media objects can be owned and controlled. But that modern notion of ownership is suddenly threatened in cyberspace. Suddenly the role of publisher is trivial: can publish your work by placing a mere pointer from within my own work. Or can actually host your text on my server at a cost of pennies in disk storage. The modern publisher has little say in this postmodern arena, and there is a natural realignment of all other parties connected by the text. Ownership is now concentrated primarily between author and reader. The classification, includes all readers, whether editor, reviewer, student, librarian, web master, or any other patron who invests time and resources with the author's work. The concept of ownership is a bit different here. Using the Using the Lockean notion of personal property (Locke, 1690), we acknowledge the author's claim to ownership on the basis of personally invested labor. By the same Lockean token, we must acknowledge claims of ownership entailed with each act of reading: an investment in kind, if not in degree, with the author. From the standpoint of the text, the author relinquishes exclusive ownership the moment the work is made public. The value of a text is determined as much by the reader as it is by the author. Indeed, if there are no readers, what possible value could be claimed from the text? The economics of cyberspace allows this natural amalgamation of interests to exist between author and reader. Quality control: a summary or an emergent process? With print publications, the referee system is a summary process. Capital outlay is associated with each printing, and sound business practice requires an assurance of objective value and viability of a transcript. The author's submission is evaluated against a set of specified and unspecified criteria. The submitted draft is either fit or unfit for publication. If the work generally lives up to expectations, the author is invited to revise any weak points and resubmit the article. Otherwise submissions are either accepted or rejected for publication. The draft that is ultimately accepted becomes the article that is published. Drafts prior to publication are rarely seen by the reader. Revisions beyond that point rarely merit the expense of republication. Not so with electronic text. There is no reason to withhold public access to an online article that is in process. The Net offers malleability where the printed page cannot. Continuous, open-ended revisions of text are feasible and even desirable in online environments. The recognition of this quality of the medium allows us to shift our conception of peer review from a summary process to an emergent process. Quality control need not be perceived primarily as an act of acceptance or rejection. The editor in an online environment can step down from the distant, anonymous, objective role as judge, and engage feely in acts of play and collaboration with the author. Quality control can be a process of mirroring, challenging, probing , validating, and encouraging an author throughout the developing cycle of peer review. So when does an emerging text become publishable? When does a draft become an article? A popular Zen koan has to do with the nature and process of being: When say that I exist, who is this r that exists? When did U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization 319 M. Simonsen originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent ....citron nnliru PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY" @default.
• W137666053 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W137666053 creator A5003306766 @default.
• W137666053 date "1997-01-01" @default.
• W137666053 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W137666053 title "Print vs. Online Scholarly Publishing: Notes and Reflections on the Peer Review Process" @default.
• W137666053 cites W153048087 @default.
• W137666053 cites W1560210504 @default.
• W137666053 cites W2031562375 @default.
• W137666053 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W137666053 type Work @default.
• W137666053 sameAs 137666053 @default.
• W137666053 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W137666053 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W137666053 hasAuthorship W137666053A5003306766 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C110875604 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C138368954 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C18599908 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C2777462167 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C49774154 @default.
• W137666053 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C108827166 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C110875604 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C111919701 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C136764020 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C138368954 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C144024400 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C151719136 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C161191863 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C17744445 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C18599908 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C199539241 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C2522767166 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C2777462167 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C29595303 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C39549134 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C41008148 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C49774154 @default.
• W137666053 hasConceptScore W137666053C98045186 @default.
• W137666053 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W137666053 hasLocation W1376660531 @default.
• W137666053 hasOpenAccess W137666053 @default.
• W137666053 hasPrimaryLocation W1376660531 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W1531855135 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W1541016824 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2000172563 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2005232956 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2014337901 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2064066099 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2095543392 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2146851808 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W230059758 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2404373395 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W247406373 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2555721547 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2608481693 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2651528806 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2897735824 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W655510716 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W67429900 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W1214246713 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W1573655783 @default.
• W137666053 hasRelatedWork W2181338606 @default.
• W137666053 hasVolume "1997" @default.
• W137666053 isParatext "false" @default.
• W137666053 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W137666053 magId "137666053" @default.
• W137666053 workType "article" @default.