tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post6228521625142740551..comments2024-03-23T00:59:24.057-04:00Comments on Sapping Attention: "Peer review" is younger than you think. Does that mean it can go away?Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04856020368342677253noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-49684308683731147502017-09-20T04:07:47.488-04:002017-09-20T04:07:47.488-04:00You're entirely right that the enthusiasm for ...You're entirely right that the enthusiasm for the term 'peer review' is new, as the forthcoming papers from Melinda Baldwin, and from me (with Noah Moxham) make clear for the sciences. Yes, it seems to be linked to the rise of the grant-making state. But there's also an interesting geographical question: all the instances we know about so far (see Baldwin) are about the USA. So why/when did other countries jump on the peer review bandwagon? We know very little about that...<br /><br />Re technology: I agree that editorial requests to authors to send in multiple copies does suggest that a reviewing process is going on. However, the lack of such request does not imply the opposite. Throughout the 19thC and early 20thC, the Royal Society (London) sent the single unique copy of the manuscript to one, two or more referees as necessary, one after the other; and thankfully the Victorian postal service was pretty good (the only issues I've spotted in the archive about papers getting lost involved them being mislaid in the referee's house, not lost in the post).Aileen Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15866706898579276306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-24983699142404533562017-09-18T16:07:13.529-04:002017-09-18T16:07:13.529-04:00For the adoption of peer review in the humanities ...For the adoption of peer review in the humanities and social sciences in the 1950s/60s (and particularly for the choice of double-blind rather than single blind) see Pontille and Torny: <br />http://adanewmedia.org/2014/04/issue4-pontilletorny/<br />Aileen Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15866706898579276306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-43302627757343615182017-09-17T23:09:36.944-04:002017-09-17T23:09:36.944-04:00Growth parallel to emerging Internet? Growth parallel to emerging Internet? Antonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07410690681268905487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-24936008514677333852017-09-17T01:44:07.138-04:002017-09-17T01:44:07.138-04:00"As always, you should basically ignore Googl..."As always, you should basically ignore Google Ngrams results from after 2000, but why not include them?"<br /><br />My impression is that 2008 (the last year in the data base) has only partial data, which is why if you set the time period to run through 2008 the graph almost always dips precipitously at the end. Because nGram normally smooths results, this makes all the recent data look bad.<br /><br />However, I think the data is pretty good through 2007.Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-83400735382226576022017-09-16T22:04:34.603-04:002017-09-16T22:04:34.603-04:00Very important work, worth continuing and spreadin...Very important work, worth continuing and spreading far and wide. Well done.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16865985571583978032noreply@blogger.com