Barry, (01)
Peer review is like motherhood: everybody loves it, nobody
is against it, and it will continue to play a major role in
evaluating ontologies: (02)
> However, his [Mark M's] main argument against the
> alternative (expert peer review-based) approach.... (03)
Expert peer review is not an alternative, it is fundamental
to *every* proposal. The controversy is about the role
of gatekeeping: (04)
- Who should do the sifting and winnowing of resources? (05)
- A publishing organization associated with resource providers? (06)
- Or the users and organizations of users who are closest
to the domains of use? (07)
The alternative is caretaking vs. gatekeeping: (08)
Under the old model of expensive publishing, the publishers
who were associated with resource providers were gatekeepers,
and the users or user organizations were at the mercy of the
publishers who decided what resources were worthy of publication. (09)
Under the new model of nearly free publishing, the cost of
making all submissions available is trivial. The OOR can now
shift its primary role to caretaking instead of gatekeeping. (010)
The primary task of evaluating the peer reviews shifts from
the publishers to the users and organizations of users. (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (013)
|