if i was a journal

I would do everything I could to capitalize on discussion of articles published inside of me. Why let the discussion float across other publications? Why limit responses to three or four? Why not have a general comment section for quick immediate feedback on articles, and a separate collection of more developed reviews to which academics can contribute over time?

I was going to say there was no interaction in journals, but this isn’t true. Academics respond back and forth, but the discussion is carried over various subscription based journals. What a nightmare it is to follow – I can’t imagine it’s possible without a fantastic library.

(trackbacks > bibliographies)

oh and if I was a journal, I’d be an open access one.

Where outside the blogsphere could unpublished reviews be collected? Mana’o?

[no this isn't an example of the kind of 'narrative' i'll be using in my thesis.] Perhaps I’ll try to sneak in an extra ] somewhere.

just noticed Google Scholar has a separate list for ‘reviews’ of a particular work, as well as an “on the web” search. Who was it who was worried about Google being a black box that filters academic informatoin in the wrong way? It’s doing a hell of a lot better job than journal publishers. It will be nice to see the Concordia self-archiving repository at work. I hope they integrate reader interaction (at least discussions on published articles? somewhere on the repository?.

but at least if I was a journal I’d have an editor who might have the good sense to block this post out.

[these kind of crappy posts could be deleted but they serve to lower the bar. It is a rhetorical strategy where one shows massive improvement over the course of ones studies. This works to enforce the necessity of the educational system. If all my posts were near quality, than my thesis would most certainly end up looking worse than a blog. And that is not a good strategy now is it? No... perhaps its just a crappy post that should be deleted.]

About these ads