This is a report (68 page PDF) on a post-publication peer review project, but the concept of 'peer review' is rather transformed in the process, focusing more on annotation than review. The authors explain, "The purpose is no longer to make an overall judgment to recommend and justify the publication (or not) of a work, but to make a judgment on very specific elements of the text by sharing scholarly reading." (p., 13) From where I sit, annotation and review are very different things. Annotation is one way of reviewing, a very labour-intensive one (which would explain why so many participants 'did not have time'). A review is more of an overall evaluation than a point by point commentary. So while I think this is an interesting report, I think there's more (wider) work that could be done on the topic.
Today: 0 Total: 35 [Direct link] [Share]
