February 24, 2005
Blind review and blogging
Mathemagenic: learning and KM insights - Monday, February 21, 2005
Is it appropriate to apply for a blind review and post to a blog? This gets to the discussion between Nate and me about the purpose of AECT (but could also apply to other professional orgs too).
Yesterday, Nate asked, as educational technologists, "when do we blog?" Now, he meant in terms of time to actually sit down and write. But the issue of "when" is also relevant in terms of questions related to publications and presentations. This is part of the discussion on the breakdown of the current journal-based system of research dissemination.
Some journals take 1-3 years to review and publish research and, in today's environment, 1-3 hours is a longtime to wait for information. So, to extend the "when" question, do we self-publish our research immediately and allow the vetting to occur in public? Being ever the pragmatist, I have to say that those of you on a tenure track have to be very careful here. It's not that the future of publishing is unclear (personal, immediate), it's that the real world of university process is still many years behind the curve and will be for the near term.
Making the decision to self-publish and forgo traditional outlets for publication might not be advisable for a new faculty member but, since we can see the future, are we being irresponsible by not releasing information as soon as possible? When is it ok to do both (submit and publish instantly)? These are sticky questions of the current period of transition that will be rendered irrelevant in the not-to-distant future but, when do we (people who research and disseminate that research) take that final step?
It is a systemic issue, meaning that it is not just one single piece that must change. Unfortunately, for many systems, change often happens only when forced from outside and, by then, it is often too late. That might be the case here. The real possibility is that researchers depending on traditional journals are rendered irrelevant as others outside of academia (or at least outside of the traditional tenure-track career) publish the ideas and information that are the currency of the trade in an instant.
It is similar to the issues facing journalism that has been written about ad nauseum in media blogs and elsewhere. It is a struggle that is not a question of "if" or "why" but of "when" and "how" (not the tech "how" - that is easy).
Sorry Nate, playing the devil’s advocate is becoming more difficult. 
Posted by Rovy at February 24, 2005 4:41 AM
Comments
No worries, Rovy :)
Remember that *I* am actually talking about three different things in this discussion.
1. blogging as process in executing the research and in the preparation of publication. (I'm not advocating publishing findings here so much as discussing projects, techniques ... )
2. maintaining the role of print journals as repository of the archaeological record. (This is the T&P path and needs to remain until the university culture changes sufficiently)
3. establishing a fast-cycle, online, rss enabled research support tradition. (This MIGHT use a blog engine as CMS ... might not ... it would be run by a publisher ... not the blogger)
The issue of "how blind can it be" if you're talking about it on your blog is a good one, but I don't think it's a show stopper.
Keep posting, Rovy. I'm still reading :D
Posted by: Nate at February 24, 2005 10:37 AM