Blog Comments and Peer Review Go Head to Head to See Which Makes a Book Better – Chronicle.com

Jeffrey R. Young (Chronicle):

The idea was to tap the wisdom of his crowd. Visitors to the blog might not read the whole manuscript, as traditional reviewers do, but they might weigh in on a section in which they have some expertise…. “We are a peer-review press–we’re always going to want to have an honest peer review,” says Mr. Sery, senior editor for new media and game studies. “The reputation of MIT Press, or any good academic press, is based on a peer-review model.”

So the experiment will provide a side-by-side comparison of reviewing–old school versus new blog. Mr. Wardrip-Fruin calls the new method “blog-based peer review.”
Each day he will post a new chunk of his draft to the blog, and readers will be invited to comment. That should open the floodgates of input, possibly generating thousands of responses by the time all 300-plus pages of the book are posted. “My plan is to respond to everything that seems substantial,” says the author.

One thought on “Blog Comments and Peer Review Go Head to Head to See Which Makes a Book Better – Chronicle.com

Leave a Reply to Draft (EL336) Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *