upgrade to 3.0

content/blog/2011-11-10-open-peer-review-new-rule.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+title: 'Open Peer Review: New Rule'
+date: '2011-11-10T13:59:30-05:00'
+permalink: /open-peer-review-new-rule/
+tags:
+    - grousing
+    - publishing
+---
+
+New rule! From this moment forward, in anything claiming to be a [“discussion” of open peer review](http://blog.aaanet.org/2011/11/09/rethinking-peer-review/), no one is allowed to refer to the *Nature* experiment as evidence that open review can’t work, at least not unless you simultaneously demonstrate (a) that you’re aware of [at least one experiment in which it worked quite well](http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/ShakespeareQuarterly_NewMedia/) (hey, wait; the results were even [reproducible](http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/shakespearequarterlyperformance/)!) and (b) that you’ve read [at least one text](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814727883) that asks a question or two about the *Nature* experiment’s presuppositions, and thus its scientific merit. We can call this the Fitzpatrick variant of Godwin’s Law; once *Nature* gets trotted out, it’s evident that you’re not interested in a real discussion.
+
+That is all.
+