The traditional, dominant method for getting academic work, research and ideas reviewed and accepted by peers is for work to be published via a recognised source. Publication in a acknowledged journal demonstrates the work meets a required standard for acceptance into the academic community.
When an academic is working on an idea at a very low level they may call upon colleagues within their department to revise and pass comments. However, this process is less well suited for work that is at the ?working or draft stage?; i.e., not quite ready for submission for publication, but well past the beginning stages of development. It would be ideal if a wider body of reviewers could assess the work. —David Tosh and Ben Werdmuller —Weblogs: a contributory element to the research dissemination process (ePortfolio Research and Development Community)
If you like, you can see Google’s HTML translation. [Update, 31 May: Karissa tells me that the URL is broken. Oh, well.]
It’s kind of nice to see, in the opening paragraph, references to blogging at Harvard, Stanford, Dartmouth, the University of British Columbia… and our own Seton Hill University. We weren’t worth mentioning by name in the body of the article, apparently, but there we are, in footnote 5.