Peer Review for Humanities Computing Software Tools

Joint Article, Section 3: What We Can Draw from Electronic Scholarly Publication

Section Authors: Jean-Claude Guédon (who will expand on this), Ray Siemens (first draft, as below) Draft 1: Sept 15, 2003

[Note: Segue material in the introductory paragraphs will be provided in full once we have a sense of how this fits with the other arguments. This will include discussion, in footnote 1 at the moment, of how this draws directly on our work in the report on the Credibility of Electronic Publication. I’ve also attached the bibliography, in case we might wish to include this in the article; if so, we may wish to pare it down slightly to only those resources of most pertinence.]

One of the most compelling arguments to assist us in the consideration of the validity of various types of scholarly electronic publications, what may be called the argument ad fontes, holds a place also as one of the most implicitly revealing arguments for the slow acceptance of new forms of publication, especially when we consider the way in which acknowledged publication, in academic environment, relates to notions of credibility. As we look at our own publication concerns, such as those related to specialised humanities computing software tools, this argument allows us to envision ways in which our current concerns have parallels to those which have been at the source, and evolved from the source, of formalized academic publication processes.

The Argument Ad Fontes, and the Source of Academic Publishing

In earlier times, when formal methods of inquiry and dissemination as we know them now were being shaped, the exchange of ideas and knowledge and the advancement of scholarship was facilitated as much by private exchanges and the circulation of private manuscripts and correspondence as by other means.

The establishment of the first scientific journals, in Britain and France during the seventeenth century, saw the beginnings of academic publication's formalized dissemination, concurrent with the development of the role of scholarly editor -- the scholarly editor, in this case, being someone who took on the task of re-circulating materials of interest to a community of scholarly readers. In addition to being responsible for disseminating those materials, the editor also helped determine which materials were of value enough to warrant dissemination to that community. While editorial boards and methods of review (methods that act, to this day, as additional assurances of value) would soon rise out of this, much of value still happened outside the more formalized processes of exchange that were emerging, and much of value would continue to be exchanged in forums outside of those vetted by editor and editorial board; and so it does to this day.

Even so, and even in the earliest stages of scholarly publication's development, not all forums were afforded the same level of attention -- nor was there the possibility of ensuring that all valuable forums received the same level of attention. Exchanges of ideas through conversation might benefit chiefly those who had the fortune of being present at the time of the conversation, but conversations of particular utility and interest could be reported in correspondence, which in turn could be redistributed to a larger group via print, if resources and inclination existed for this to happen. The print record (letter, journal note or article, monograph, and so forth) could then be preserved, again providing that the community served by the print record had the means and inclination to do so. Ownership of ideas and materials was at issue variously; but, on the whole, emphasis was on ensuring that valuable ideas circulated and became part of growing, documented, bodies of knowledge.

Drawing from the Source, and Relating it to the New Humanities Research Form of Software

The argument ad fontes is often used to suggest that we might turn to earlier models of scholarly exchange -- not only the emerging formal methods that we now accept, but also those that were and are treated less formally -- and consider their possible relationship, even if only metaphorically, to what we now refer to as “new” types of scholarly publication and exchange that are made possible by the electronic medium. Two years ago, as we carried out work toward our report on the credibility of electronic scholarly publication for the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada, we had found that the argument ad fontes is, indeed, not ineffective. When used concurrent with highlighting the validity of contributions produced electronically and/or disseminated via such models of exchange, the argument has shown significant utility; it allows one to suggest, clearly, that academics should be willing both to consider the valuable ideas and information that can be made available to us through new systems of interaction and dissemination and, very importantly to our immediate purpose, to recognise valid, new forms that academic work might take.

By highlighting the validity of contributions to knowledge disseminated via and made possible through innovative models of exchange that fall outside of those that see professional-acceptance today (as well as within), the argument ad fontes urges that we should be willing to consider innovative models and forms of exchange. Indeed, it suggests that innovation and evolution are hallmarks of academic publication. In doing so, it also offers much to our overall conceptualization of ways in which new forms of academic dissemination and interaction are made possible by the electronic medium -- itself a very valuable activity.

Our report – and its consideration of the source of publication processes within the context of an evaluation of contemporary concerns – found that all available evidence suggested the academic community to be quite willing to consider how the electronic medium can facilitate dissemination of work and collegial interaction; indeed, this matter receives active consideration, currently, in areas well beyond those where computing and networking technology are unavoidably at the heart of one’s pursuits and concerns. Academe’s recognition, thus, of the role of the electronic medium in the work of the Arts and Humanities is no longer an issue. It is important to note, however, that even among this same group – comprised of those that might make use of electronically-based academic resources and might participate in electronically-facilitated exchanges – there is a still a marked reluctance to publish in refereed electronic outlets or make their scholarship available electronically in other ways. Just as significantly, the majority of those in the Arts and Humanities are unlikely to be involved in activities that may have the production of specialised research software as one of their scholarly outputs. It is quite likely, then, that while we may expect the reluctance to publish in the electronic medium to lessen as considerably in the near future as it has in the recent past, we may also expect that concerns associated with the acceptance of such forms of research output as academic software will have to follow a course of acceptance that has aspects similar to that undergone recently by electronic scholarly publications that more resemble typical forms of Arts and Humanities research output.

This relates directly to the matter at hand: that is, peer review and other processes that might work toward ensuring a credible reception in the humanities of the development of specialist humanities computing software. When we looked at the credibility of electronic scholarly publishing via the argument ad fontes, we noted that two chief decisions have had to be made, time and time again, with regard to academic publication in its various forms and via its various processes. The first relates to scope: that is, it relates to what to publish. The second relates to process: that is, it relates to how we publish, with that processes, on what media, and so forth. Consistently, the chief factor in the determination of the result of each of these decisions appears to have been the will of the community that those published materials were intended to serve. It is the will of the community served by specific forms of publication that, for a considerable time, has decided what to publish for that community, by what processes to publish, on what media, and via what distribution method.

As recent discussions in the humanities computing community document, it is the will of this community to explore how we might best treat one of our key forms of academic expression: software. We wish to do so because we recognise that software is as much a product of our community’s work as are more traditional forms of expression: papers, articles, editions, books, and so on. Moreover, we recognise that, in the Arts and Humanities, academic processes associated with the evaluation of traditional forms of expression do not yet adequately treat the intellectual energy associated with the production of research-specific software.

It is worth drawing attention to this situation – and these motivations – in this way specifically because the situation our community is encountering related to the publication of specialised research software has elements that are closely analogous to the situation our community encountered, very recently, with concerns related to academic electronic publication. If this is so, then it follows that solutions may be found by turning to the same materials that resulted from our community’s engagement with issues relating to the acceptance, in the Arts and Humanities, of electronically-published materials.

Of specific note, our work on the Credibility of Electronic Publication report asserted that peer review has become the cornerstone of academic publication; it is a process that has evolved over many generations of scholars and is something that is highly valued in all scholarly activities – among them, the pragmatics of academic review processes on which recognition, hiring, promotion and tenure are founded. Necessarily, and appropriately, it is a conservative process and, therefore, we must note that any new scholarly endeavour will take time to gain general acceptance via such review methods.

Further, a publisher's imprimatur or imprint is also seen to be a very important indicator of qualitative assurance in academic culture and, in some areas of the Arts and Humanities, it is more important than peer review, though difficult to divorce from it.

Drawing on this and other factors, we observed that where similar qualitative guarantees exist – guarantees of peer review, publisher imprimatur, and beyond – it was well-acknowledged by the larger Arts and Humanities academic community that equivalent work should possess equivalent weight. This is so because it is the mechanism of peer review, and what lies behind the process of assigning imprimatur, that makes the claim of qualitative assurance, and not the medium of publication. Continuing in this vein, we recommended that the community interested in electronic scholarly publication consider a course of action consisting of the following: identifying best practices for publishing accepted by the academic community at large; exploring the elements of peer review processes suitable for electronic publication (considering the implications of such processes both for reviewers and authors); and adopting, and making public, best practices for publishing electronic materials that accord as much as possible with those already accepted by the academic community.

Arguing from analogy, then, we can urge a similar path as we work toward ensuring a credible reception in the Arts and Humanities for the publication of specialist humanities computing software. We can build on what we know already about what is well-accepted in academic publication generally, and consider measures taken recently by those involved in electronic scholarly publication to ensure that such publication saw credible acceptance by the community it intended to serve.

[Note: Segue material in the concluding paragraphs will be provided in full once we have a sense of how this fits with the other arguments. I will also make mention of the appendix-bibliography, should this be something considered worthwhile to include.]

Appendix: Select and Annotated Bibliography on Peer Review and Electronic Scholarly Publication

The body of literature touching on the subjects of peer review and imprimatur -- as they relate both to materials in print and electronic form -- is overwhelmingly large. The following list does not (and cannot), therefore, attempt to be exhaustive. Rather, this list attempts to highlight a number of central and useful works; with few exceptions, each of these works provide extensive lists of further references. Brief annotations follow most selections.

• Arms, William Y. "The Institutional Implications of Electronic Information." Presented at Technology, Scholarship, and the Humanities: The Implications of Electronic Information (September 30 - October 2, 1992; U of California, Irvine). Rptd. Coalition for Netoworked Information http://www.cni.org/docs/tsh/Arms.html>. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/dlis/models/studies/elec-pub/elec-pub.htm>.
  • Suggests implications of electronic publication and other types of electronically-facilitated exchanges on infrastructure and policy, and beyond; treats peer review.
• Armstrong, C.J. and Ray Lonsdale. The Publishing of Electronic Scholarly Monographs and Textbooks. Aberystwyth: Centre for Information Quality Management, Information Automation Limited, and Department of Information and Library Studies, University of Wales Aberystwyth, 1998. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/dlis/models/studies/elec-pub/elec-pub.htm>.
  • Pragmatic overview of possibilities; some typology; some recommendations; bibliography and appendix.
• Austin, Philip et al. “From Here to Eternity: Creating, Protecting and Sharing Digital Scholarly Resources at UBC”. Working Paper: ACIT Policy subcommittee. May 1996: 27pp. 6/7/00. http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~acitpo/working.html>.
  • Detailed analysis of the challenges facing electronic publishing institutionally, at UBC.
• Baker, Shirley K. et al. “Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing.” May 10, 2000: 7pp. Association of American Universities, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Merrill Advanced Studies Center of the University of Kansas. 6/14/2000. http://www.arl.org/scomm/tempe.html>.
  • Detailed outline of principles developed and agreed upon at Tempe meeting.
• Beattie, David, and David McCallum^?. “Electronic Publishing Initiatives at Industry Canada.” Beyond Print: Scholarly Publishing and Communication in the Electronic Environment. Online Posting. September 26-27, 1997. http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/EPub/talks/IC-EPPP.html>.
  • Describes Industry Canada’s initiatives, programs and interest in scholarly electronic publishing; addresses the issue of credibility, suggesting that related organizations adopt McCallum^?’s "Proposed Resolution" (see McCallum^?).
• Butler, H. Julene. "Research into the Reward System of Scholarship: Where Does Scholarly Electronic Publishing Get You?" 167-177 in Ann Okerson, ed. Scholarly Publishing on the Electronic Networks. Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium Association of Research Libraries, November 5¬7, 1994. Washington, DC: Office of Scientific & Academic Publishing, Association of Research Libraries, 1995.
  • Evaluation of e-publication in professional academic environment.
• Butler, H. Julene. "Where Does Scholarly Electronic Publishing Get You?" Journal of Scholarly Publishing 26 (July 1995): 174-186.
• Chan, Leslie, and William Barek. Beyond Print: Scholarly Publishing and Communication in the Electronic Environment. Online Proceedings. Sept. 30, 1998. E-Publishing Symposium: Sept. 26-27, 1997. 6/15/00. http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/epub/1997.html>.
  • Home page of conference with pertinent topics addressed; links to many presented papers on key issues, as well as web resources on e-publishing.
• Chan, Leslie K.W. “Electronic Publishing and Scholarly Communications on the Internet.” June 5, 2000: 10 pp. University of Toronto. 6/13/00. http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/CAPA/E-publishing.html>.
  • As above; resource page carrying extensive links to areas covering issues facing electronic publishing.
• Cohen, Andrew G. “A System for Electronic Peer Review.” The Impact of Electronic Publishing on the Academic Community. (Session 3). 1997: 1-3. The Proceedings of the International Workshop Organized by Academia Europea and the Wenner-Gren Foundation. Portland Press, 1997. 6/15/00. http://tiepac.portlandpress.co.uk/books/online/tiepac/session3/ch2.htm>.
  • Offers a system for implementing electronic peer review; standards are the same as the traditionally-accepted practices.
• Day, Abby, and John Peters. Quality Indicators in Academic Publishing. Library Review. 43.7 (1994): 3-72.
  • Full issue, dedicated to a study which identifies "those factors which indicate that a particular [academic] journal is of high quality” (4); results intended to reveal tools available for assessing the quality of academic journals; covers referee reports and 'quality' in academic and practitioner journals; includes representative data, methodological discussion, &c., with reading list.
• Ensor, Pat, and Thomas Wilson. "Testing the Promise." Journal of Electronic Publishing 3.1 (1997). http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-01/pacs.html>.
  • Discusses pragmatic and other issues related to the peer review process and e-journal production.
• Evans, Paul. “What is the Peer Review Process?” Internet Free Press. (1998):6 p. 6/11/00. http://www.free-press.com/resources/content/peerrev.html>.
  • Detailed description of the “conventional” peer review process and concerns related to it; offers an alternative process involving preprints and electronically-facilitated peer review processes.
• Fjällbrant, Nancy. "Scholarly Communication -- Historical Development and New Possibilities." Presented at the IATUL Conference, University Library of Trondheim, 1997. http://educate.lib.chalmers.se/IATUL/proceedcontents/fullpaper/nfpaper.html>.
  • Historical overview and contextual development of scholarly and e-publication; rationale for practices; extensive documentation.
• Fraser, Murray, et al. “The Changing World of Scholarly Communication: Challenges and Choices for Canada”. November 1996. University Affairs. (June – July 1996): 6. 5/26/00. http://www.aucc.ca/en/briefs/aucccarl.htm>.
  • Final report of the AUCC-CARL/ABRC Task Force on Academic Libraries and Scholarly Communication; stated purpose to heighten awareness about the crisis informing scholarly communication, and to discuss the dynamic and democratized potential for publication and interaction made possible by the electronic medium; recommendations and rationale, discussion, &c., on issues dealing with the challenges inherent in establishing and maintaining electronic publishing.
• Fraser, Murray, et al. "Towards a New Paradigm for Scholarly Communication.” September 1995. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and Canadian Association of Research Libraries. 6/6/00. http://www.aucc.ca/en/briefs/scholarly.html>.
  • Earlier than that noted above, outlines the crisis in scholarly communication, discussing challenges facing Canadian libraries as well as issues central to electronic publishing; copyright initiatives, governmental initiatives; addresses areas requiring further consideration and also short-, medium-, and long-term recommendations; initially provided reading list.
• Ginsparg, P. “Winners and Losers in the Global Research Village.” (Session: Scientist’s View of Electronic Publishing and Issues Raised, Wed. 21 Feb. 1996). Electronic Publishing in Science: Conference held at UNESCO HQ, Paris, France. 19-23 Feb. 1996. 6/15/00. http://xxx.lanl.gov/blurb/pg96unesco.html>.
  • Distinguishes between trade and scholarly publishing, to explain the importance of the electronic medium in scholarly communication; explores problems with the traditional peer review, and pitfalls of using the electronic medium without proper understanding; draws on experience with automated archives to provide details of electronic preprint processes; expresses the need to transform the traditional peer review process.
• Green, Diana. What Is Quality in Higher Education? Buckingham: Open University Press, 1994.
  • General, and detailed, discussion of qualitative issues in all facets of our endeavour.
• Greenberg, Douglas. "You Can't Always Get What You Want: Technology, Scholarship, and Democracy." New Technologies and New Directions. Westport, CT: Meckler, 1993: 11-25.
• Harnad, Stevan. "Free at Last: The Future of Peer-Reviewed Journals." D-Lib Magazine 5.12 (December 1999) http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html>.
  • Provides overview of newly-implemented peer review process; explores positive aspects of electronic publishing; distinguishes between types of journals; questions efficiency of print while addressing arguments against electronic publishing (namely, monetary); praises revolutionary potential of electronic publishing and its interactivity, cost savings, and ability to reach wide audiences.
• Harnad, Stevan. "Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals." In Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier, ed. Robin P. Peek and Gregory B. Newby, 103-118. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996. http://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad96.peer.review.html>.
  • Collaborative model of publication, electronic facilitation; role of peer review; costs and efficiency.
• Harnad, Stevan. “Learned Inquiry and the Net: The Role of Peer Review, Peer Commentary and Copyright.” Antiquity 71. (1997): 1042-8. http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/EPub/talks/Harnad_Snider.html>.
  • Explains ideal intentions of the scholar / scientitist in creating and disseminating knowledge; notes the continuing necessity of peer review, while encouraging "open peer commentary" as an addition to it; addresses copyright.
• Harnad, Stevan. "The Invisible Hand of Peer Review." Nature, 5 November 1998, Web Matters Section. http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html>; [expanded] Exploit Interactive 5 (April 2000) http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/>.
  • "[R]efereed journal literature needs to be freed from both paper and its costs, but not from peer review, whose 'invisible hand' is what maintains its quality."
• Judson, Horace Freeland. "Structural Transformations of the Sciences and the End of Peer Review." Journal of the American Medical Association 272 ( 1994) http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3112x.htm>.
  • Intentionally provocative; "although peer review and refereeing seem rational, indispensable, and immutable, the histories demonstrate that they are social constructs of recent date"; suggests "an evolution toward a form of publication that will be a continuing open dialogue and collaboration among contributing scientists, editors, expert commentators, and readers."
• Kahin, Brian. "Scholarly Communication in the Network Environment Issues of Principle, Policy, and Practice." [Paper prepared for the Information Infrastructure Project at Harvard and the Coalition for Networked Information, February 18, 1992], http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/kahin_scholarly_communication>.
  • Good contextual overview of issues.
• Kassirer, Jerome P. "Peer Review: Crude and Understudied, But Indispensable." Journal of the American Medical Association 272 ( 1994) http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3089x.htm>.
  • Defines and discusses peer review, and suggests possible improvements.
• Mathews, G. Jason and Barry E. Jacobs. “Electronic Management of the Peer Review Process.” Fifth International World Wide Web Conference, May 6-10, 1996. Paris, France. 21 pp. 5/25/00. http://www5conf.inria.fr/fich-html/papers/P55/Overview.html>.
  • Addresses problems associated with implementing peer review on the internet; step-by-step description of a successful process, termed the Electronic Management System (EMS); list of electronic and non-electronic resources.
• McCallum^?, David L. “Proposed Principles For Electronic Scholarly Publishing Projects.” (25/02/97). Online Posting. 6/15/00. http://www.schoolnet.ca/vp-pv/rcis/e/princips.htm>.
  • Principles developed to encourage discussion toward establishing desirable traits for successful electronic academic publishing in Canada.
• McCallum^?, David L. “Resolution for Consideration by Canadian Academic Associations In Support of Electronic Publications.” (September 7, 1997). Ottawa, Ontario. 6/15/00. http://www.schoolnet.ca/vp-pv/rcis/e/resolute.htm>.
  • Proposed resolution for adoption by Canadian Learned Societies: "This association recognizes the legitimacy of scholarly material published in electronic form when such information conforms to broadly accepted standards of peer review”; includes further links to relevant material.
• McCarty^?, Willard. "Because It's Time: A Commentary on the Program Session." Presented at Internet-Accessible Scholarly Resources for the Humanities and Social Sciences (1996 ACLS Annual Meeting). American Council of Learned Societies Newsletter 4.4 (1997) http://www.acls.org/n44mccar.htm>.
  • Suggests a useful typology of activities for scholarly internet (e-published) resources; includes evaluative steps and publication; role of institution.
• “MLA Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages.” MLA Committee on Computers and Emerging Technologies in Teaching and Research. Proceedings of the May 19-20, 2000 MLA Executive Council meeting. Online Posting. 6/22/00. http://www.mla.org/reports/ccet/ccet_guidelines.htm>.
  • Outline for institutional committees developing guidelines which support and encourage scholarly electronic publishing.
• “MLA Guidelines for Institutional Support of and Access to Information Technology for Faculty Member and Students in Modern Languages.” MLA Committee on and Emerging Technologies in Teaching and Research. Proceedings of the MLA Council meeting. May 19-20, 2000:2p. Online Posting. 6/22/00. http://www.mla.org/reports/ccet/ccet_support.htm>.
  • Outline of features necessary to encourage and support scholarly electronic publishing, among other ventures.
• Nadasdy, Zoltan. "Electronic Journal of Cognitive and Brain Sciences: A Truly All-Electronic Journal: Let Democracy Replace Peer Review." The Journal of Electronic Publishing 3.1 (1997) http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-01/EJCBS.html>.
  • Suggests process alternative to peer review, electronically-facilitated.
• Peters, John. “The Hundred Years War Started Today: An Exploration of Electronic Peer Review.” The Electronic Peer Review Conference. April – August 1995: 9 p. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 5.4 (1995): 3-9. http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/works/PeterHundr.html>. 6/9/00.
  • Notes that the future of e-publishing is unknown; provides criticisms of electronic publishing and detailed look at role of peer review in eliminating most of these problems; suggests areas for further exploration; very well documented.
• Pope, Barbara Kline. “National Academy Press: A Case Study.” The Journal of Electronic Publishing. Adapted from the 1999 National Electronic Publishing Seminar sponsored by the University of Virginia and the Library of Congress. 5/16/00. http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/04-04/pope.html>.
  • Brief exemplary overview of National Academy Press and why they chose e-publication; NAP offers free full text online while simultaneously marketing print versions.
• Roberts, Peter. "Scholarly Publishing, Peer Review, and the Internet." First Monday 4.4. 6/28/00. .
  • Documents significance of internet, reception by international academic community, and appropriateness of scholarly e-publishing; typology of acceptable forms of e-writing; arguments in favour of moving from print-publishing to e-environments assessed; reinforces need for rigorous systems of peer review in all scholarly work.
• Schauder, Don. "Electronic Publishing of Professional Articles: Attitudes of Academics and Implications for the Scholarly Communication Industry." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45 (1994): 73-100.
• Shum, Simon Buckingham ed. “JIME Reviewer’s Guide.” 1998. Journal for Interactive Media in Education. 6/15/00. .
  • Overview of the conversational/debating model of peer review implemented by JIME.
• Smith, Alastair G. "Testing the Surf: Criteria for Evaluating Internet Information Resources." The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 8.3 (1997): http://info.lib.uh.edu/pr/v8/n3/smit8n3.html>.
  • Suggested process for evaluating internet resources.
• Stodolsky, David S. "Consensus Journals: Invitational Journals Based upon Peer Review." The Information Society 11.4 (1995): 247-260.
• Sumner, Tamara, and Simon Buckingham Shum. “Open Peer Review & Argumentation: Loosening the Paper Chains on Journals.” Adriadne. (September 11, 1996):1-9. Knowledge Media Institute of Open University. 6/11/00. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/jime/>.
  • Fuller context for Shum, above; explores attempts to develop a successful, interactive peer review process; examines shortcomings of traditional peer review process, document lessons learned and principles derived from previous computer-supported collaborative argumentation; documents JIME peer review process; extensive list of additional references.
• “UVIC Report on Academic Computing Recognition.” May 20, 2000: 1-3. University of Victoria. 6/9/00. .
  • Statement recognizing the validity of electronic publishing; guidelines for candidates seeking recognition, committee responsibilities in evaluating computer-related activities, and further considerations; links to additional related resources.
• Willis, Jerry. “Some Decisions To Be Made in the Near Future.” Bridging the Gap Between Traditional and Electronic Scholarly Publishing. 1995 EDUCOM Conference. 1-10. 6/22/00. http://www.coe.uh.edu/~brobin/Educom95/EducomJW/decision.html>.
  • Detailed overview of issues related to the transition from traditional and electronic scholarly publishing; examines role of library; further resources documented.
• Wood, D. J. "Peer Review and the Web: The Implications of Electronic Peer Review for Biomedical Authors, Referees and Learned Society Publishers." The Journal of Documentation 54 (March 1998): 173-197.
• Zinn-Justin, J. “Peer Review and Electronic Publishing.” The Impact of Electronic Publishing on the Academic Community. (Session 3). 1997:1-5. Proceedings of the International Workshop Organized by Academia Europea and the Wenner-Glen Foundation. Portland Press, 1997. 6/15/00. http://tiepac.portlandpress.co.uk/books/online/tiepac/session3/ch3.htm>.
  • Discusses problems of peer review in print publication and the crisis of the referee system in physics; suggests open refereeing via a specific type of database.

Works Cited

• Fjällbrant, Nancy. "Scholarly Communication -- Historical Development and New Possibilities." Presented at the IATUL Conference, University Library of Trondheim, 1997. http://educate.lib.chalmers.se/IATUL/proceedcontents/fullpaper/nfpaper.html>.
• Fuller, Stephen. "Response to Harnad." Times Higher Education Supplement (May 12, 1995). http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/THES/fuller.html>.
• Harnad, Stevan. "The PostGutenberg^? Galaxy: How to Get There From Here." Times Higher Education Supplement (May 12, 1995). http://www.bib.ecs.soton.ac.uk/data/4117/html/thes.html>.
• Guédon, Jean-Claude, with R.G. Siemens. “Peer Review and Imprint.” 17-34 in Siemens, et al., The Credibility of Electronic Publishing.
• Rockwell, Geoffrey, and Lynne Siemens. “Questionnaire Results.” XX-XX in Siemens, et al., The Credibility of Electronic Publishing.
• Schauder, Don. "Electronic Publishing of Professional Articles: Attitudes of Academics and Implications for the Scholarly Communication Industry." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45 (1994): 73-100.
• Scholarly Electronic Publishing in the Social Sciences and the Humanities in Canada: A Study of the Transformation of Knowledge Communication. http://ahdp.lib.ucalgary.ca/hssfc/>.
• Siemens, R.G., gen. ed, and Michael Best, Alan Burk, Elizabeth Grove-White, Jean-Claude Guédon, James Kerr, Andy Pope, Geoffrey Rockwell, and Lynne Siemens. The Credibility of Electronic Publishing: A Report to the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada. Text Technology 11.1 (2002): 1-128. http://www.mala.bc.ca/~siemensr/hssfc/index.htm>.
• ---. “Scholarly Publishing at its Source, and at Present [Introduction and Overview].” Xx-xx in Siemens, et al., The Credibility of Electronic Publishing.
• ---. “Peer Review for Humanities Computing Software Tools: The Lesson We Can Draw from Electronic Academic Publication.” Presented at the joint international conference of the Association for Computers and the Humanities and the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, Athens GA (June 2003).
• ---, with Laura Johnston. “Peer Review and Imprint: Select and Annotated Bibliography.” Xx-xx in Siemens, et al., The Credibility of Electronic Publishing.

• (comment from StefanSinclair - 05 Aug 2005 00:31:08): is there any risk of charges of "auto-plagiarism" with the SSHRC report? should that matter?
• (comment from StefanSinclair - 05 Aug 2005 00:31:22): it could be more persuasive to reverse a bit some of the arguments that go "the report said so and so, which could be adapted as such" to "here's a certain perspective, which jives well with the report in these ways, but also evokes these extensions or modifications" (much more nicely formulated, of course, but I hope you get the idea)
• (comment from StefanSinclair - 05 Aug 2005 00:31:32): will the phrase "ad fontes" be as recognized by a broader humanities computing audience? is there a possible pun to be exploited on the word "sources"?
• (comment from StefanSinclair - 05 Aug 2005 00:31:42): could blogs be considered a compelling example of a return to earlier forms of dissemination? (bug tracking forums could be an interesting variant on this)
• (comment from StefanSinclair - 05 Aug 2005 00:31:52): you talk about the will of the community as very important - how is the will expressed? associations? subscriptions? letters to editors? submissions?
• (comment from StefanSinclair - 05 Aug 2005 00:32:08): would it be possible to sketch in even more the continuities and differences between publishing of e-texts and scholarship and development and publishing of software?

• (comment from StefanSinclair - 05 Aug 2005 00:32:29): you talk about best practices for e-publishing, what if there's nothing similar to base ourselves on for academic software review?
• (comment from StefanSinclair - 05 Aug 2005 00:32:42): is it worth expanding about the differences between academic publications which, for better or for worse, tend to deal in discreet and immutable objects (even electronically), compared to software which tends to be a dynamic and continuous (or at least multi-pronged) beast?
• (comment from StefanSinclair - 05 Aug 2005 00:32:51): where appropriate, can more specific pointers to the bibliography be included (or restored, if they were lost during wikification)
• (comment from StefanSinclair - 05 Aug 2005 00:33:01): I like the idea of including the full bibliography - even augmented for software and updated - though it might be best to put it as an appendix to the cluster, if you're willing

Comments:

Steve Ramsay says . . .

I think this is superb -- particularly the attempt to historicize peer review processes as an outgrowth of the more pragmatic matter of diseminating information in early print culture. I do think, though, that the "argument from analogy" might be strengthened by taking on -- point for point, as it were -- the similarities between these early forays and the present situation of software in the humanities.

None of the other essays take on the issue of dissemination -- the ways in which editorial processes were initially (and remain) mechanisms for the movement of ideas within a culture. Is it possible to argue that software in the humanities has some of the same mobility problems that occured in earlier epochs because there is no editorial broker to marshall the movement?