Why Blogs are Peer Reviewed Sources

This post originally appeared on Andrew J Walsh.com, and is reproduced here with permission.

In academia, peer review is the process that is supposed to separate the trustworthy from the unreliable, the conclusive from the flawed, the groundbreaking from the mundane.

Before a work can be published, a rigorous review by a carefully selected group of scholars in the same field is necessary in order to ensure a high level of quality and originality.

As a general concept, though, peer review is simply defined as “a process by which something proposed for publication is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field.”

And this reminds me a lot about how the blogosphere operates.

Only today, where we publish at the click of a button, the “peer review” process occurs afterward.

In an age where social networking sites, especially Twitter, are incredibly popular places for bloggers to connect with others in their niche, most of us are part of a large network where we share content, recommend articles, offer suggestions and even engage in heated debates.

Every time we write a new post, we promote it through these channels. This is where the initial review begins: the first group of readers makes a judgment on whether or not a post is persuasive, well-reasoned and interesting enough to pass on to more people.

If not, the post is essentially “rejected” and will slip into oblivion. But if so, these people will retweet it, share it on Facebook, or mention and link to it on their own blog.

The potential for quick spreading of information through social media is staggering, and since these bloggers are connected to others in their niche, a popular post will be read by many thousands, including authority bloggers, who are certainly “experts in the appropriate field.”

This much larger group of readers then completes the “review”: they inspect the post critically and make suggestions, pose questions and point out its strengths in the comments section. The author frequently responds and carries on a dialogue with this team of “peer reviewers,” offering further clarification or recognizing a particular flaw.

Aside from being exceptionally fast, another advantage of this type of system is that it is completely transparent: any web surfer stumbling on the post can see the full transcript; it’s not shrouded in secrecy by some elite group.

Some academics have even begun to realize the merits of this type of model. The Shakespeare Quarterly recently experimented with a web-based evaluation approach in one of its issues, as the NY Times reported:

“Instead of relying on a few experts selected by leading publications, they advocate using the Internet to expose scholarly thinking to the swift collective judgment of a much broader interested audience.”

It will be interesting to see how these types of trends continue.

photo by katagaci

 

Did You Enjoy This Article?



andrew walsh Sign up to be notified of Andrew's latest writing here on Social Web Q and A.

Speak Your Mind

*