Mike Thicke

Most of what this article is saying is old news to those of us who study academic publishing or scientific epistemology or whatever, but probably not to many working academics. So partly I think this just isn’t for you.

Further, though, I don’t think it’s useful to describe all academic discourse as “peer review”. Of course we need to read and respond to each other’s work.
But do we need the “review” as a central institution of academic publication? I’m not so sure.

Dec 14, 2022 at 5:22pmWeb
Show threadEconprophDec 14, 2022

@mikethicke agree. While I haven't done a rigorous deep dive on the issue, I suspect that the practice of academic "peer review" evolved primarily in the past as a way to ration access/use of what was once costly, high-investment printing & publishing processes.

But that's not our problem now, is it? We need more dialogue and less review-based gatekeeping, IMO.

Show threadZoe Wake HydeDec 16, 2022
@econproph @mikethicke I keep thinking about this, Jim! I'm not sure the origin of peer review was about gatekeeping access to resources so much as gatekeeping access/participation in the scholarly conversation (though that, too, might be hindsight speaking). @jmaxsfu - any insight? In any case, gatekeeping is its function, and that alone is reason enough for a major overhaul of how we think about any kind of review. Certainly with you both on that front.
Show threadJohn MaxwellDec 16, 2022

@zwhnz @econproph @mikethicke Jim's point, I think, is that it has *become* that kind of gatekeeping with the shift to digital, as a way of creating scarcity in an otherwise abundant context. Definitely something to that, esp for prestige journals.

Enormous opportunity currently to rethink what we want PR to do. Not to "fix" it by making it open vs closed or any other such binary, but to ask what the goals are -- what we want the goals to be -- and design for that.

Show threadMike ThickeDec 16, 2022
@zwhnz @jmaxsfu @econproph My research background is in social epistemology of science, so I have *lots* of thoughts about peer review. I hope to write about how we might think about that from a software development perspective on the Commons soon…
Show threadJohn MaxwellDec 17, 2022
@mikethicke @zwhnz @econproph Mike, here's a talk I gave last summer on the (fledgling) Canadian HSS Commons: https://hsscommons.ca/publications/350/supportingdocs?v=1
The Social Life of Scholarly Documents: Establishing Value in the Commons

Canadian HSS Commons, peer review, scholarly communication

Show threadJohn MaxwellDec 17, 2022
@mikethicke @zwhnz @econproph In a very real sense, we wrote this talk for you, Mike :-) Technically, we wrote it for Graham Jensen. But it's also addressed to you pretty specifically. Would love to know your thoughts.
Show threadMike ThickeDec 17, 2022

@jmaxsfu @zwhnz @econproph Thanks for this John! I think your analysis of the unfulfilled promise of commonses is spot-on. As you suggest, the big question is how to incentivize the type of open scholarly communication and collaboration we desire given the economic and cultural reality of professional academia.

I agree with your broad argument that this requires active organization. We need to pull people in to the conversation--not just trust that if we build a platform they will automatically participate in it in the ways we envision. I don't think I would characterize the answer as "peer review" exactly... but finding a way to recognize contributions in a way that is compatible with the academic CV is essential.

This problem, and "digital presence" in general, is something that @schopie1 has thought a lot about as well---so maybe he has more to say!

Show threadJohn MaxwellDec 17, 2022
@mikethicke @zwhnz Thanks, Mike. We began this from looking at peer review and what to do constructively with it... and so that's centered in this piece, although it became clear we were talking about broader things. I do think if some kind of culture of curation can be established in the Commons, it'll have to have something like PR as part of it.
Show threadschopie1Dec 17, 2022
@jmaxsfu @mikethicke @zwhnz As Mike suspected, I have a lot of thoughts on this and you all are giving me some nudging with this conversation to write a bit more about it.
I agree in so many ways peer review has strayed from being a process focused on formative feedback and strengthening our writing and communication skills — which often today gets relegated to “peer feedback” leaving review in kind of a separate category? There is some great work that we are doing with @publicphilosophyjournal on facilitating review as a more collaborative process with http://www.pilcrow.is that returns more to that sort of focus as a part of the journals peer review process.
Pilcrow – A project from MESH and PPJ

Show threadschopie1Dec 17, 2022
@jmaxsfu @mikethicke @zwhnz @publicphilosophyjournal I think the work that @cplong and colleagues are doing with the @humetricshss project also provides a nice framework that we can think about following as we build out communities of practice on the Commons, engage in more formative processes of peer feedback and review, and think about how we represent types of work that are scholarly products, but not often the types that are destined for formal publications. I’m imagining a workflow for this type of work that may carry evidence of engagement with peers as the artifact is created and which serves to make public this activity when published in a place like the Commons.
Show threadChris LongDec 17, 2022
@mikethicke @zwhnz @jmaxsfu @econproph Mike, any interest in writing such a piece for the @publicphilosophyjournal? We could model generative, formative review on the essay with you.
Show threadMike ThickeDec 18, 2022
@cplong @zwhnz @jmaxsfu @econproph @publicphilosophyjournal Hey Chris—Thank you; I’d be honored! Maybe I’ll get to experience Pilcrow in action!
Show threadChris LongDec 18, 2022
@mikethicke @zwhnz @jmaxsfu @econproph @publicphilosophyjournal Yes! While #Pilcrow is not quite yet ready for prime time, it would be great to have your experience as a developer brought to bear on the user experience end of it. Once you have a draft, we’ll pull the team together to make it happen! @schopie1 @kfitz
Show threadJohn MaxwellDec 18, 2022
@cplong @mikethicke I do have that unedited talk that needs to become an article... are you interested in that?
Show threadChris LongDec 18, 2022
@jmaxsfu @mikethicke Yes, John, we’d love to take a look at that talk too. Please submit it through the @publicphilosophyjournal website: https://publicphilosophyjournal.org/ and we’ll start the process!!
Show threadThe PPJDec 19, 2022
@jmaxsfu @cplong @mikethicke Echoing @cplong here to say we'd love to see writings about these issues! You can also contact the editorial team directly at [email protected], or Associate Editor Shelby Brewster at [email protected].
Show threadMike ThickeDec 16, 2022
@zwhnz @jmaxsfu @econproph Also, FWIW, I believe the original function of journal review was to shield the Royal Society from running afoul of the king’s blessing, so it was pretty gatekeepey from the start.
Show threadJohn MaxwellDec 17, 2022
@mikethicke @zwhnz @econproph Peers being peers.
Show threadBonnieDec 19, 2022
@zwhnz @econproph @mikethicke @jmaxsfu I hate to say this, but I spent 10 years in scholarly publishing and there were cases I witnessed where there was an attempt by some senior scholars to use peer review to enforce orthodoxy on a particular opinion or theory. Finding reviewers who were open to new scholarship that contradicted or questioned previous work was sometimes difficult, even when that work was supported by solid research.