For the last week in Colleen Morgan's blog carnival Blogging Archaeology, she asked "For our last question, I would like to ask you to consider the act of publication for this blog carnival #blogarch. How could we best capture the interplay, the multimedia experience of blogging as a more formalized publication? What would be the best outcome for this collection of insights from archaeological bloggers?"
Blogging Archaeology, week 5. Image by Colleen Morgan
I'm currently at the Society for American Archaeology meetings in Sacramento, where I'm the chair and discussant for a selection of papers on archaeological blogging: the Blog Carnival was in support of these papers. The project was organized by Colleen Morgan at Berkeley: all of the creative aspects of this project are Colleen's. The papers describe why the writers personally blog, what they feel the benefits of blogging are compared to other forms of communication with their various publics, and how they might gain acceptance in the academic world.
They're interesting papers, and along with the Blog Carnival, which I really haven't participated in, they provide a considered look at this weird medium. In my posting today, I want to weigh in on Colleen's last question.
I strongly urge the participants to stay in the electronic medium to "publish" these pieces. The only way to establish credibility for academic blog writing is to prove that it can be peer reviewed. And this is a great opportunity to test it.
In one of the group's university settings---I suggest Michigan State since Lynne Goldstein has achieved such broad support from her administration---create a web page for Blogging Archaeology. Colleen should write an introduction to the project papers. Post your papers there and link to the Blog Carnival. You'll have to cut off comments on the Blog Carnival prior to obtaining reviews.
The papers can be in whatever form the authors choose. Html, MS Word; Mike Smith can leave his in Power Point and add notes if he wants to participate. You might ask Alun Salt and other Blog Carnival participants who could not attend the SAAs this year to provide a more formalized paper as well. But in whatever form the papers arrive in, they need to be signed and dated.
After your papers are done, solicit reviews. I can think of several appropriate people who might be interested in critiquing this experiment, including folks in and outside of archaeology.
Post those reviews, dated and signed. Then crack open comments again, and watch what happens.
I'm really excited about this opportunity to see great leaps in scientific blogging, and I'm grateful to Colleen for inviting me along for the ride.
- Blogging Archaeology Week 5, Middle Savagery
- Peer Review: A definition
- Seeing the Light: Peer Review in Archaeology
Comments
Very interesting question: but I’m not sure that is really right. A blog isn’t a paper, isn’t a journal: the reference is the author. If it’s an archaeologist, undergraduate or PhD, the blog has a value, if other not. Especially in SEO point of view, because the blogs are in the internet and must respect the rules of internet and search engines.
The nature of blog is communication, share opinions, ideas: the peer review process destroy those, imho.
For ex.: I’m a PhD in Archaeology, I’m writing on my blog with a trasparent methodology. Probably few of my articles not trespass the peer review process, but in that case, my network less the opportunity to stay upgrade.
I’m pleasure to share opinions in this point of view.
I’ve always had a love-hate relationship with peer review: I don’t like the way it’s conducted in private, but I think it keeps us on some common ground.
I personally think that if it’s done right, if the reviewers must admit their identities, then peer review becomes input, not a yea or nay barrier. In addition, in my model, the original paper and the discussion itself are all in essence “published” at the same time.
But I fully admit to a somewhat rosy outlook, which I can get away with (no doubt) because of my distance from the nitty gritty of academics.
Kris
Can we establish a new set of mores that make comments on a blog much more like a discussion we might have at a professional meeting… or even over beers at the end of a meeting day? Those could be stated repeatedly on a site to get them established, and we could call each other when we step outside them. After all, culture is being changed in social media, and we can create this element of that culture!
After all, discussion and collegiality probably have more long-term benefits than peer review anyway.
That’s a great idea—but I must insist on no flavored beers at the table.
Hi Kris,
Something like MediaCommons might be a good model, http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/blog/2010/03/15/welcome/
…and my paper w/ slides and audio can be found at http://electricarchaeologist.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/signal-versus-noise-why-academic-blogging-matters-a-structural-argument-saa-2011/
Shawn