Scholarship in an age of participation Export

@article{citeulike:3472777, abstract = {Academic Scholarship Today Blending the best of traditional journals with emerging tools of managing high levels of information presents unique opportunities for moving journals forward as a cornerstone for information creation, dissemination, and sharing. The following are guiding principles are suggested: 1. Two-fold model: peer-reviewed and informal commons 2. Open reviews 3. Meta-Reviews 4. Discussion 5. Annotation 6. Journal as community Two-paths Our need for scholarly work runs on varying gradients between formal and informal. The easy access of search engines and sites like Wikipedia, provide a simple access point to ” quick and dirty” information. More involved research (such as writing a thesis or submitting an article for formal publication) requires greater use of traditional scholarship. Our knowledge need drives the tool we require. As many bloggers have discovered, peer review can help to shape and create ideas prior to publication (Chris Anderson's book Long Tail). To attend to this dual need for information, a journal should permit traditional peer-review, as well as the informal review of the commons. As detailed in Figure 1 of a proposed flow of a "current journal", an author has the option of submitting a document for either formal review or commons review (though even the formal article ends in the commons after review). Articles that initiate in the commons can be moved through the formal peer process if the author chooses (and the community rates the article sufficiently well). Readers of the journal will rate articles posted into the commons (similar to Stumbleupon or Amazon rating or the Digg metric of raising the profiles of articles ranked by the community). Articles that are established are then published in the online journal as well as a paper journal. OJR forms the base of the system. Open reviews Anonymous review is frequently criticized as a limitation of journals. Journals need to make the comments of all reviewers public in order to form the basis of deep dialogue. No source of information should receive a privilege status. All information is available to democratic dialogue. Meta reviews Healthy systems permit feedback. Members of a community require the ability to ” review the review”. This may be a controversial approach – the anonymity of reviewers enables expression of ideas that may be difficult in open public forums. As a democratic model, however, the ability to rate the value of each review is important. Even experts are not immune from changing pressures to the creation and dissemination of information. Editors, journalists, researchers, and others are subject to the back channel models of evaluation. Discussion Articles, which have gone through the commons or the formal review process, are subject to annotation and discussion. Any member of the journal community has the ability to comment on the articles, and engage the author and community members in discussion. Discussions are appended to each article. Discussions of a more general or cross article nature can be held in separate forums. Annotation Annotations differ from discussion in the granularity of focus. Annotations focus on or address a single idea – a statistic, citation, or comment. Public Library of Science uses an annotation system where a blue asterisk is placed inline to alert readers to an annotation. Journal as community A journal is an opportunity to move beyond content or information consumption. While ” community” and ” journal” may not appear to fit together well, journals typically bring together the prominent thinkers and interested stakeholders of a discipline. Enlarging the conversation of journals to include deep discourse on articles and annotation throughout, sets the basis for a democratic, social model of scholarship.}, author = {Siemens, George}, citeulike-article-id = {3472777}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/journal.htm}, day = {27}, journal = {elarnspace, everything elearning}, keywords = {journal, openaccess, startup, stumble}, month = {March}, posted-at = {2008-12-06 21:02:39}, priority = {1}, title = {Scholarship in an age of participation}, url = {http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/journal.htm}, year = {2007} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:3472777 L3 - citeulike-article-id:3472777 N2 - Academic Scholarship Today Blending the best of traditional journals with emerging tools of managing high levels of information presents unique opportunities for moving journals forward as a cornerstone for information creation, dissemination, and sharing. The following are guiding principles are suggested: 1. Two-fold model: peer-reviewed and informal commons 2. Open reviews 3. Meta-Reviews 4. Discussion 5. Annotation 6. Journal as community Two-paths Our need for scholarly work runs on varying gradients between formal and informal. The easy access of search engines and sites like Wikipedia, provide a simple access point to “quick and dirty” information. More involved research (such as writing a thesis or submitting an article for formal publication) requires greater use of traditional scholarship. Our knowledge need drives the tool we require. As many bloggers have discovered, peer review can help to shape and create ideas prior to publication (Chris Anderson's book Long Tail). To attend to this dual need for information, a journal should permit traditional peer-review, as well as the informal review of the commons. As detailed in Figure 1 of a proposed flow of a "current journal", an author has the option of submitting a document for either formal review or commons review (though even the formal article ends in the commons after review). Articles that initiate in the commons can be moved through the formal peer process if the author chooses (and the community rates the article sufficiently well). Readers of the journal will rate articles posted into the commons (similar to Stumbleupon or Amazon rating or the Digg metric of raising the profiles of articles ranked by the community). Articles that are established are then published in the online journal as well as a paper journal. OJR forms the base of the system. Open reviews Anonymous review is frequently criticized as a limitation of journals. Journals need to make the comments of all reviewers public in order to form the basis of deep dialogue. No source of information should receive a privilege status. All information is available to democratic dialogue. Meta reviews Healthy systems permit feedback. Members of a community require the ability to “review the review”. This may be a controversial approach – the anonymity of reviewers enables expression of ideas that may be difficult in open public forums. As a democratic model, however, the ability to rate the value of each review is important. Even experts are not immune from changing pressures to the creation and dissemination of information. Editors, journalists, researchers, and others are subject to the back channel models of evaluation. Discussion Articles, which have gone through the commons or the formal review process, are subject to annotation and discussion. Any member of the journal community has the ability to comment on the articles, and engage the author and community members in discussion. Discussions are appended to each article. Discussions of a more general or cross article nature can be held in separate forums. Annotation Annotations differ from discussion in the granularity of focus. Annotations focus on or address a single idea – a statistic, citation, or comment. Public Library of Science uses an annotation system where a blue asterisk is placed inline to alert readers to an annotation. Journal as community A journal is an opportunity to move beyond content or information consumption. While “community” and “journal” may not appear to fit together well, journals typically bring together the prominent thinkers and interested stakeholders of a discipline. Enlarging the conversation of journals to include deep discourse on articles and annotation throughout, sets the basis for a democratic, social model of scholarship. JF - elarnspace, everything elearning TI - Scholarship in an age of participation KW - journal KW - openaccess KW - startup KW - stumble AU - Siemens, George PY - 2007/03/27/ UR - http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/journal.htm ER -