|Abstract||Peer Review and Copyright each have a double role: Formal refereeing protects (R1) the author from publishing and (R2) the reader from reading papers that are not of sufficient quality. Copyright protects the author from (C1) theft of text and (C2) theft of authorship. It has been suggested that in the electronic medium we can dispense with peer review, "publish" everything, and let browsing and commentary do the quality control. It has also been suggested that special safeguards and laws may be needed to enforce copyright on the Net. I will argue, based on 20 years of editing Behavioral and Brain Sciences, a refereed (paper) journal of peer commentary, 8 years of editing Psycoloquy, a refereed electronic journal of peer commentary, and 1 year of implementing CogPrints, an electronic archive of unrefereed preprints and refereed reprints in the cognitive sciences modeled on the Los Alamos Physics Eprint Archive, that (i) peer commentary is a supplement, not a substitute, for peer review, (ii) the authors of refereed papers, who get and seek no royalties from the sale of their texts, only want protection from theft of authorship on the Net, not from theft of text, which is a victimless crime, and hence (iii) the trade model (subscription, site license or pay- per-view) should be replaced by author page-charges to cover the much reduced cost of implementing peer review, editing and archiving on the Net, in exchange for making the learned serial corpus available for free for all forever.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Leigh Turner (2003). Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Ronald N. Kostoff (1997). The Principles and Practices of Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1).
J. Scott Armstrong (1997). Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1).
Susan Haack (2007). Peer Review and Publication: Lessons for Lawyers. Stetson Law Review 36 (3).
Sivaramjani Thambisetty & Kartik Kumaramangalam, Peer-Review and Patents: Why the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg is a Red Herring.
Robin Hanson (1995). Appendix. Comparing Peer Review and Information Prizes: A Possible Economics Experiment. Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
Arthur E. Stamps (1997). Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1).
James R. Wilson (2002). Responsible Authorship and Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2).
Carole J. Lee (2013). Bias in Peer Review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
Wendy Lipworth, Ian Kerridge, Stacy Carter & Miles Little (2011). Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Kathleen Fitzpatrick (2011). Peer-to-Peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority. Social Epistemology 24 (3):161-179.
Malcolm Atkinson (2001). 'Peer Review' Culture. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2).
Tim Barnett, Ken Bass & Gene Brown (1996). Religiosity, Ethical Ideology, and Intentions to Report a Peer's Wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (11):1161 - 1174.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads3 ( #203,804 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?