Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or Supplement?
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton AT acm.org>
As an independent scholar, I have anecdotal evidence in favor of Stevan’s ↵ prediction. Two aspects stand out for me: 1. In the evolving delivery of Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs), some ↵ subjects do not admit well of machine grading, although multiple-choice quizzes ↵ are heavily used. For meaty assignments, peer assessment procedures are used, ↵ since it is the only way for it to work among thousands of participants. In ↵ some technical courses, peer assessment is central and quality of assessments ↵ is taken seriously by the students. At the worst (and I am participating in ↵ one of those at the moment), peer assessments are largely ceremonial and the ↵ level of returned comments is superficial and banal, so the opportunity to ↵ learn and improve from the review and perspective of others is lost. One can, ↵ of course, learn a great deal from making assessments of the work of other ↵ students, since it improves one’s own critical understanding and provides ↵ practice at affirmatively appraising the work of others. The instilling of ↵ this spirit is uneven across MOOCs I have been in. And, where taken seriously ↵ and guided appropriately, the peer assessment process is invaluable. 2. Scholarly and scientific peer review are a different matter, and it has ↵ different drivers, including editorial limitations and the availability of ↵ qualified and interested reviewers. (In the Coursera MOOCs, a student does not ↵ receive marks and appraisal of their own assignment without first providing ↵ blind peer assessments for at least five other students. This is valuable so ↵ long as the students decline to game the system by simply giving their peers ↵ high marks and no feedback. There are some who forget that review is supposed ↵ to be constructive and not ego-tripping, not unique to the MOOC case.) Recent experience with EasyChair suggests that on-the-whole reviewers take ↵ their duties seriously and provide excellent observations. Here there are ↵ constraints on length of submissions, norms for the community, time available ↵ for review, and the fact that not all submissions, regardless of quality, can ↵ be selected. In my case, I can still take value from the review process of a ↵ rejected submission and, if I choose, self-publish the work on one of the ↵ sites, such as arXive, available for that level of contribution. It won’t ↵ have the imprimatur of inclusion in a conference proceeding or professional ↵ publication, yet I can place the work in public and it will have benefitted ↵ from the reviews obtained and from subsequent comments by those whose attention ↵ is drawn to the work, although that will be by informal means. For me, none of this is a bad thing. It serves to make work available, there ↵ are quality drivers even if not up to peer-review standards of a given field, ↵ and sometimes it is the best way to have work preserved, available, and an ↵ invitation for further review and discussion. I think, in the MOOC case where ↵ peer-assessment and the cultivation of Community Teaching Assistants (sort of ↵ like trustees) is well-nurtured, the long-term effect may be profound in the ↵ promotion of learning. And the historically-revered edifices will remain at ↵ the pinnacle of all this. -- Dennis E. Hamilton <mailto:dennis.hamilton AT acm.org> dennis.hamilton AT acm.org ↵ +1-206-779-9430 <https://keybase.io/orcmid> https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF ↵ D456 628A X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail From: boai-forum-bounces AT ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:boai-forum-bounces AT ↵ ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:19 To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum; Lib Serials list Subject: [BOAI] Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or Supplement? Harnad, S. (2014) Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or supplement for the ↵ current outdated system? ↵ <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/> LSE Impact Blog 8/21 [ … ] My own prediction (based on nearly a quarter century of ↵ <http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/bbs.valedict.html> umpiring ↵ both classical peer review and open peer commentary) is that crowdsourcing will ↵ provide an excellent supplement to classical peer review but not a substitute ↵ for it. Radical implementations will simply end up re-inventing classical peer ↵ review, but on a much faster and more efficient PostGutenberg platform. We will ↵ not realize this, however, until all of the peer-reviewed literature has first ↵ been made open access. And for that it is not sufficient for Google merely to ↵ provide a platform for authors to put their unrefereed papers, because most ↵ authors don’t even put their refereed papers in their institutional ↵ repositories until it is mandated by their institutions and funders. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1121-Crowd-Sourced-Peer-Review-Substitute-or-Supplement.html
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: email@example.com .