Dear Eduardo and Gunnar
Although I have commented that it is difficult to imagine a science or reputable
disciplinary without peer review, I am not proposing to radically and immediately
throw away the peer review system. It would be impractical and dangerous.
Although I have called peer review a dinosour, it is not to do with a lack of
trust, but rather driven by the ideal of non-representative democracy. (by the
way, Harold Nelson and Erik Stoltlerman have discussed the role of design in
realizing this ideal in their book "The Design Way" 2003).
It took the British Medical Journal three congresses and a major invited journal
debate in a span of 10 years just to abolish the custom of blind peer review. It
took the journal five more years to become what it is today: transparent,
inclusive of all submissions, and free. The problem of information overload is
resolved by advance technology and information/communication design.but i must
admit i don't know how much it costs to run for example the British Medical
Journal. maybe you and others can tell us more.
I refer to Scott Armstrong to say that for review practice, we should change the
decision from whether-to-publish-a-paper to how-to-publish-it. And for who should
review research work, I add (IDEALLY SPEAKING BUT PRACTICALLY NOT YET FEASIBLE),
we should change the decision from who-should-review to
how-to-allow-everyone-to-review.
if our discussion can increase awareness and the rethinking of peer review within
design research, then our time has been well spent.
I hope it won't take us 15 years to do something about our peer review practice,
especially we are 15 years behind the medical field on this issue and there are
models to draw from within and without design.
best regards rosan
and please don't shut up. i always trust that others know when and how to delete
messages.
|