upgrade to 3.0

content/blog/2009-02-06-digital-peer-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: 'Digital Peer Review'
+date: '2009-02-06T11:45:07-05:00'
+permalink: /digital-peer-review/
+tags:
+    - mediacommons
+    - 'planned obsolescence'
+---
+
+*cross-posted at [MediaCommons](http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org)*
+
+In the last few days, I’ve been running across a bunch of activity around the question of peer review in digital publishing, thinking that’s extremely important to MediaCommons as we begin the project of building our peer-to-peer review network. I’ve also been writing about such questions a log, in particular in my [book project](/planned-obsolescence-the-proposal), which I plan to begin posting excerpts from in the coming days. For the moment, however, a few links:
+
+On “Academic Evolution,” a very strong [argument](http://www.academicevolution.com/2009/02/peer-review-is-vanity-publishing.html) by Gideon Burton indicating that our insistence that peer review is the thing that keeps academic publishing from turning into vanity publishing may be entirely wrong.
+
+Urbis, a [creative review engine](http://urbis.com/about) for aspiring writers, using networked structures to help them develop and improve their work.
+
+And, perhaps most significantly, if only because of its potential reach, Google Code’s [GPeerReview](http://code.google.com/p/gpeerreview/) project, which enables a network of colleagues to review and sign one another’s work, and to use statistical analysis to determine the connectedness of that work.
+
+Are there other projects and experiments of which we should be taking note as we plot our peer-to-peer review future?
+