Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 16, No. 239.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu> (35)
Subject: Re: 16.232 MacArthur Fellowship recognizes Internet
publisher
[2] From: Greg Lessard <lessardg@qsilver.queensu.ca> (12)
Subject: Your posting on Humanist
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:35:02 +0100
From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: 16.232 MacArthur Fellowship recognizes Internet publisher
Willard,
Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty ) wrote:
>
>It should also be noted, I suppose, that the Ginsparg mechanism suits
>physics as it could never suit the humanities. The genius of it lies in
>that match between tool, material and its social context. Our publishing
>needs, it seems to me, are a great deal more complex and demanding.
In what way are the publishing needs of the humanities "a great deal more
complex and demanding"?
I have heard this asserted in a variety of contexts by humanities scholars
but other than the bare assertion, I have never heard any principled
justification for the statement. By principled justification I mean one
that uses facts or analysis to support of the notion that publishing in the
humanities is qualitatively different from publishing in physics, for example.
Lack of peer review is the bogeyman that I have most often heard as a
criticism of the Ginsparg mechanism. As far as I know, the various journals
in physics have not abandoned peer review as a result of the Ginsparg
mechanism and physicists continue to publish in those journals. Does anyone
seriously contend that the quality of publishing in physics has declined as
a result of this mechanism? (While a judgment call, that would at least be
an attempt at a justification for not following this model.)
The Ginsparg mechanism can actually lead to more peer review since
materials posted can be reviewed and commented upon anyone with an interest
in a particular topic and not just the greatly reduced subset of peer
reviewers for a particular journal.
So if the issue is not peer review, which as noted is not necessarily
affected by such a model, what are these "complex and demanding" needs of
the humanities? (I realize your position is generally accepted dogma in the
humanities but I don't think it should go unchallenged.)
Patrick
-- Patrick Durusau Director of Research and Development Society of Biblical Literature pdurusau@emory.edu--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:35:43 +0100 From: Greg Lessard <lessardg@qsilver.queensu.ca> Subject: Your posting on Humanist
Hi Willard,
You said recently on Humanist:
>It should also be noted, I suppose, that the Ginsparg mechanism suits >physics as it could never suit the humanities. The genius of it lies in >that match between tool, material and its social context. Our publishing >needs, it seems to me, are a great deal more complex and demanding.
I'm curious to know where you see the difference between the two areas.
Greg
Greg Lessard, Directeur tudes franaises, Queen's University Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6 Courriel: lessardg@qsilver.queensu.ca Tl: (1)(613) 533-2083 Fax: (1)(613) 533-6522
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 02 2002 - 05:21:10 EDT