Comments on: Blog-Based Peer Review: Some Preliminary Conclusions, part 2 http://grandtextauto.org/2008/04/05/blog-based-peer-review-some-preliminary-conclusions-part-2/ A group blog about computer narrative, games, poetry, and art. Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:43:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: questions « Ungooglable http://grandtextauto.org/2008/04/05/blog-based-peer-review-some-preliminary-conclusions-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-340025 questions « Ungooglable Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:48:42 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2008/04/05/blog-based-peer-review-some-preliminary-conclusions-part-2/#comment-340025 [...] cf. Wardrip-Fruin’s concern that “starting a new site for each manuscript reviewed, and gathering a new community to that [...] [...] cf. Wardrip-Fruin’s concern that “starting a new site for each manuscript reviewed, and gathering a new community to that [...]

]]> By: noah http://grandtextauto.org/2008/04/05/blog-based-peer-review-some-preliminary-conclusions-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-231367 noah Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:22:17 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2008/04/05/blog-based-peer-review-some-preliminary-conclusions-part-2/#comment-231367 A flip side of this is that examples that didn't seem to particularly grab anyone and which didn't attract engagement from their creators (like <a href="http://grandtextauto.org/2008/03/06/ep-73-brutus/" rel="nofollow"><i>Brutus</i></a>) didn't produce much conversation. I was a bit surprised by this, given that some of what I wrote in these sections seems controversial. For example, <i>Brutus</i> has previously been treated as a major story generation system, and I characterized it as something close to a literary hoax... A flip side of this is that examples that didn’t seem to particularly grab anyone and which didn’t attract engagement from their creators (like Brutus) didn’t produce much conversation. I was a bit surprised by this, given that some of what I wrote in these sections seems controversial. For example, Brutus has previously been treated as a major story generation system, and I characterized it as something close to a literary hoax…

]]> By: noah http://grandtextauto.org/2008/04/05/blog-based-peer-review-some-preliminary-conclusions-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-231032 noah Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:06:43 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2008/04/05/blog-based-peer-review-some-preliminary-conclusions-part-2/#comment-231032 That's definitely true. Right now it feels to me like academic blogging is gaining momentum, so that many people in digital media who would have a book under blind peer review from an academic press would also be part of the community of a blog in the field. I can imagine Grand Text Auto hosting a blog-based review for someone who is a member of the community but not one of the primary authors (e.g., a regular reader whose work we admire). I can also imagine us hosting a review for someone who is a colleague of ours who doesn't have an established blog (e.g., if Kate Hayles had wanted to do this kind of review for <a href="http://grandtextauto.org/2008/03/12/electronic-literature-new-horizons-for-the-literary/" rel="nofollow">her recent <i>Electronic Literature</i> book</a>). But maybe a better model (than expanding the role of existing blogs) is something like the planned <a href="http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/" rel="nofollow">MediaCommons</a> network. This would have an ongoing flow of conversation, and an established community, but not as small a circle of authors as a typical academic blog. People who are authors of established blogs might connect their efforts to the MediaCommons network, but host them on their own blogs. Those who are not authors of established blogs might host them directly with MediaCommons. That’s definitely true. Right now it feels to me like academic blogging is gaining momentum, so that many people in digital media who would have a book under blind peer review from an academic press would also be part of the community of a blog in the field. I can imagine Grand Text Auto hosting a blog-based review for someone who is a member of the community but not one of the primary authors (e.g., a regular reader whose work we admire). I can also imagine us hosting a review for someone who is a colleague of ours who doesn’t have an established blog (e.g., if Kate Hayles had wanted to do this kind of review for her recent Electronic Literature book).

But maybe a better model (than expanding the role of existing blogs) is something like the planned MediaCommons network. This would have an ongoing flow of conversation, and an established community, but not as small a circle of authors as a typical academic blog. People who are authors of established blogs might connect their efforts to the MediaCommons network, but host them on their own blogs. Those who are not authors of established blogs might host them directly with MediaCommons.

]]> By: Mark http://grandtextauto.org/2008/04/05/blog-based-peer-review-some-preliminary-conclusions-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-230972 Mark Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:34:39 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2008/04/05/blog-based-peer-review-some-preliminary-conclusions-part-2/#comment-230972 I'm not sure those critiques are all that different, though. Someone not well established in the field who writes a new book will probably <i>also</i> not be the author of a well-established blog in the field on which to post the manuscript, so they'll have to go a different route. I’m not sure those critiques are all that different, though. Someone not well established in the field who writes a new book will probably also not be the author of a well-established blog in the field on which to post the manuscript, so they’ll have to go a different route.

]]>