David Lee King has a post up about peer review. He raises a good question about what is a better type of peer review. Just go read it, because I really hate paraphrasing stuff.

As a tenure-track librarian floating around in academia, I find that I’m struggling to get people to look at the whole concept of peer review in a new way. I have to publish. I don’t mind writing and don’t even have a problem with doing the traditional thing of getting myself published in some sort of peer reviewed journal, if I eventually have something to say that is fresh. One of my complaints with journals is that sometimes it seems to be the same stuff rehashed over and over and over or the information is out of date by the time the journal is actually published. It was likely innovative and exciting when the author(s) sat down to write the article 2 years previously, but things are changing quickly in our world.

To keep up, I read blogs or other such things. If you’re a blog reader, you know that if people disagree or have something to say or want to correct facts, there are plenty of folks who feel perfectly free to comment on posts. Isn’t this essentially peer review? I’d say if you are writing a blog on a regular basis, you’re publishing. And if people are reading it and commenting, it’s getting peer reviewed.

So, it’s time to start recognizing this as a legitimate form of publication and peer review. Sure, there are people out there writing complete drivel, but I think most of us are intelligent enough to distinguish that. There are debates about citing blog posts as research, but if it’s legitimate, intelligently written information, then cite it. As librarians, we usually advocate that people use many sources anyway and I think we need to be willing to accept the fact that people are actually writing about things on blogs that is timely and important. (Which is getting a big off the point I think David was trying to make.)

The thing is, there are numerous ways that our work is being peer reviewed on a regular basis. When you present at a conference that has feedback forms, you are being peer reviewed. When you post to a listserv, your comments and ideas are being peer reviewed.

Maybe our perception of peer review and the purpose of it needs to change. What is the point of the anonymous group of reviewers who provide no feedback, other than to allow your article to be published, and don’t even interact with each other and acceptable form of peer review in this age of easy communication and interaction. I do understand the blind review in terms of people getting a fair chance regardless of who they are. But with the ease of disseminating information today, is that really necessary anymore?

Let’s discuss.