At 07:01 PM 9/22/2008, Roman Turovsky wrote: >From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Lutenet is not an ademic institution, and little mentioned here would >>>require peer review. This is both good and bad, as we are free to discuss >>>the Chilesotti papers debacle, while having to tolerate Doug Smith's Lute >>>History. >> >>We are in agreement on the former point. Having never actually read the >>latter (and sincerely interested in maintaining more friendship than >>enmity), I have no comment on the latter. >> >>Best, >>Eugene >It is not obligatory. >However it would be logical and nice to apply the same standard of >recensional peerage or lack thereof on all scholarly types among the >lutenet denizens.
I do. I still agree with your statement that "Lutenet is not an ademic institution, and little mentioned here would require peer review." Where scholarship does hit print, there is a difference between the peer-review press and books generated for popular consumption, of course. I'm OK with that. It would be prudent for the interested to know there is a difference. Best, Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
