Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or Supplement?

From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton AT acm.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:27:04 -0700


Threading: [BOAI] Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or Supplement? from amsciforum AT gmail.com
      • This Message


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

ATTACHMENT: message.html!

-- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .