Steve, list, I am not aware that Peirce said anything explicitly about peer review, although he certainly said things that are relevant to it - more of that when we move on to the next segment of Joe's paper. But of course academic disdciplines barely existed in Peirce's day, and they certainly were not institutionalized the way they are today. Thus Perirce could hold a degree in chemistry, spernd most of his professional life as astronomer, while taking time out to teach logic at Johns Hopkins, a combination that is hardly imaginable today.
Does anyone else have any light to shed on Steve's question? Cheers, Peter ________________________________________ From: Stephen C. Rose [stever...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 5:19 PM To: Skagestad, Peter Cc: PEIRCE-L@listserv.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [peirce-l] SLOW READ: THE RELEVANCE OF PEIRCEAN SEMIOTIC TO COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AUGMENTATION Did Peirce ever say anything relevant to the issue of peer review? As for example implying a division between disciplines, in which ordinary persons would have no relevant contribution to make, and areas where anyone of ordinary capacities might be seen to have a valuable contribution to make? The impression I have is that Peirce might be quite iconoclastic regarding the vetting all of claims to truth, not to mention the proliferation of specialization and its sequestration under the umbrellas of academia and professions. ShortFormContent at Blogger<http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Skagestad, Peter <peter_skages...@uml.edu<mailto:peter_skages...@uml.edu>> wrote: List, After a bit of a hiatus I am returning to the slow read of Joe’s paper. I said earlier that, while I count myself quite knowledgeable about the topics covered in the first part of the paper, I know next to nothing about contemporary scientific communication, which is the focus at least of the second half. It has occurred to me, however, that in the interest of full disclosure I should mention that I am currently in my third career as a textbook editor, meaning that I routinely commission and interpret reviews of manuscripts. These reviews are no doubt very different from prepublication reviews of scientific papers – my manuscripts are reviewed less for truth claims than for coverage, organization, accessibility, and the like – but the listers should be aware that this is what I do for a living. We resume on page 19 of the version posted at Arisbe. Having described Ginsparg’s publication system (arXiv), Joe counters the criticism that the system lacks peer review, not by questioning the fundamental importance of peer review to scientific communication, but by challenging the concept of peer review as currently understood, i.e. prepublication review by editorially selected reviewers: JR: [my] view is … that what has come to be called “peer review” is not peer review proper but rather a crippled form of it which is not only of limited value at best as a critical control principle but is also a subversion of the peer principle that underlies the practice of authentic peer review. Why? Because it treats peer review as a system of elite control, which is directly contrary to the conception of a peer.” PS: Initially, Joe notes, he thought this use of the term “peer review” to refer to review by editorially selected reviewers was a purely verbal matter, which was best left undisturbed, especially as both defenders and opponents of the practice shared the same usage. But this, he had later come to see, was a mistake. By accepting the conventional usage of “peer review” and by rejecting peer review so understood, the advocates of the Ginsparg system were in effect undermining the radical potential of the system and contributing go rendering it innocuous: JR: “[Since] it is respect for the peer principle that lies at the basis of the critical control of research communication generally, [the rejection of peer review] was a rhetorical mistake that has enable the success of those who deny the significance of the success of the Ginsparg system by denying that it has the status which it actually does have as a venue for primary publication. With this status denied, what actually takes place in the Ginsparg system can be and now commonly is in fact dismissed as being no different in kind from what happens on any bulletin board, listserver based forum or discussion group, chat line, or any other informal medium not regarded as important enough to the hegemony of legitimacy claimed by the editorially controlled journal to be a challenge to it.” PS: So, Ginsparg’s system, in Joe’s view, differs substantially from informal online discussion groups by incorporating its form of peer review, facilitated by the use of abstracts, which enables it to play the role previously played by scientific journals, while at the same time its egalitarianism poses a serious challenge to the elitism of the scientific establishment. This challenge, however, has been blunted by the failure of both the system’s advocates and the defenders of the status quo to recognize the role of peer review in the system and the consequent failure of both sides to distinguish the Ginsparg system from informal forums which pose no threat to the status quo. What is needed, in Joe’s view, is a new understanding of “peer review”, starting with a new understanding of the term “peer”: JR: “A research peer … is a presumptive equal, not someone who has been demonstrated to be de facto equal in this or that respect but rather someone who is regarded, presumptively, as someone whose informed opinion about the subject-matter of research is to be taken as seriously as one’s own opinion is insofar as that depends on the status of the researcher, as distinct from its dependence on the justification provided by the researcher for the claim. A peer is someone whose disagreement with one’s own view requires to be explained … a non-peer is someone whose opinion about the matter in question makes no difference to you…” PS: I pause here to note that Joe is here defining “peer” in terms of how a person is to be treated; your peer is a person you regard in a particular way and treat in a particular way. Joe not going to go into the question of how a person comes to qualify as your peer, not because the question is not important, but because it is too big a question to do it justice in this context. Joe goes on to define “peer review” as follows: JR: ”Peer review proper, then, is what occurs in the inquiry process when one makes … a research claim and the research community addressed responds according to the communicational norms that then obtain. All communication that occurs within this normatively constituted dialogical space hat pertains to the claim at issue is peer review.” PS: There is much more to come, but I shall stop here, both to catch my breath and to give listers the opportunity to chime in with any comments or questions that occur to you. As there has been very limited list participation so far, I want to emphasize that of course a slow read is a recreational activity rather than a professional duty. No one should feel any obligation to contribute; I am simply offering the opportunity to do so. I plan to resume in a few days. Cheers, Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu<mailto:lists...@listserv.iupui.edu> with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU<mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
