Samuel Moore on Nostr: I really appreciate this post by Emily Bender on how the arXiv can be in tension with ...
I really appreciate this post by Emily Bender on how the arXiv can be in tension with 'slow' scholarship. I don't think I share the faith in peer review, but I do agree that openness and inclusivity can often work against one another.
I think one way of navigating the tensions between slowness, inclusivity and openness is through structured or purposive approaches to seeking feedback and sharing research. This can be through different forms of 'peer' 'review' but not necessarily peer review as traditionally conceived.
So rather than rejecting the arXiv, I'm interested in what happens prior to research being deposited there: who has read the paper, what kind of internal process has it gone through before deposit, and so on. Designing these structures and making them transparent would get away from restrictive open vs. closed binaries and towards a more thoughtful way of opening research out to different communities.
https://medium.com/@emilymenonbender/scholarship-should-be-open-inclusive-and-slow-15ab6ce1d74c
I think one way of navigating the tensions between slowness, inclusivity and openness is through structured or purposive approaches to seeking feedback and sharing research. This can be through different forms of 'peer' 'review' but not necessarily peer review as traditionally conceived.
So rather than rejecting the arXiv, I'm interested in what happens prior to research being deposited there: who has read the paper, what kind of internal process has it gone through before deposit, and so on. Designing these structures and making them transparent would get away from restrictive open vs. closed binaries and towards a more thoughtful way of opening research out to different communities.
https://medium.com/@emilymenonbender/scholarship-should-be-open-inclusive-and-slow-15ab6ce1d74c