Open Peer Review: Current Anthropology

As the call for open access in scholarly texts continues, much of the debate revolves around what to do about peer review, with some academics arguing that open access will mean the death of peer review completely. In brief (because I droned on about it earlier) peer review is that process by which scholars assure that manuscripts that are published go through a stringent vetting process. The argument is that if you make scholarly research freely available, then the peer review system will collapse under the sharply curtailed financial structure of our academic publications. The use of peer review in scholarly investigations is, of course, as old as scholarly investigations are, but what I argue for is not the removal of peer review, but rather the revision of peer review, in effect making the peer review process transparent. Needless to say I am not the first anthropologist to come up with this idea; that was Sol Tax.

The Visionary Sol Tax

Sol Tax was a visionary anthropologist based at the University of Chicago. Erudite and imaginative, Tax is known for several innovative and important changes in anthropological studies, such as in 1961 when he invited 700 American Indians from 80 tribes to a conference, in an attempt to develop the first unified Native American position paper on the relation of Native American peoples to the federal government. He also is important for the development of 'action anthropology', in which he fused applied and academic anthropology by using anthropological techniques for the direct benefit of indigenous peoples.

One of Tax's many lasting contributions was the creation of Current Anthropology. In 1959, Tax began what he termed a 'social experiment', an academic journal that would be configured to "exchange and pool ideas, information, research materials and new knowledge. We shall review for one another the major results of past research, as a basis for more fruitful intercommunication on current developments" (Tax 1959:3). In addition to standard peer reviewed articles, in each issue, there would be at least one paper presented that would be read and provisionally accepted by the editorial staff, and then duplicated and sent out to a list of readers, who would write commentary about the article. The author would then be able to respond, and the whole thing, article, comments, and response, would be published at once. In this manner, said Tax, it would serve "as a technique for combining the advantages of symposia (without having to travel) with the advantages of the kinds of discussion found in Letters to the Editors (without having to wait); for bringing specialists together, for pooling capabilities in areas which are increasingly difficult for one person to cover single-handed; and for drawing in people at the borderlines of our science" (Tax 1959:8).

Current Anthropology's Lasting Impact

Current Anthropology has continued its system ever since, but, as far as I am aware (and I keep track of about 150 journals), it is the only journal to present reviews of articles in this explicitly transparent manner. Yes, there are 'letters to the editor' columns in many if not most journals, but only in CA are signed commentaries included alongside the original text. Only since the advent and muscular use of the Internet has the wide-spread use of transparent peer review become a common occurrence outside of academic conference meetings and letters to the editor columns. Transparent peer review. Sol Tax. What a guy.

• Sol Tax Obituary at the University of Chicago
• Sol Tax [1907-1995], gushy description of Tax written by me
• Current Anthropology
• A Look at OA Anthropology and PLOS One, Eric Kansa's take on the PLOS One story, on Digging Digitally
• What is Peer Review?
• Seeing the Light, the rudiments of a model for peer review on the Internet

The founding statements of CA were printed in the "pre-issue", published in 1959 by Wenner-Gren Press.