Fitzpatrick 2011

From Whiki
Revision as of 23:01, 19 December 2015 by Wtrettien (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. New York: NYU Press, 2011.

"If this traditional mode of academic publishing is not dead, but undead—again, not viable, but still required—how should we approach our work and the publishing systems that bring it into being? " (4)
"In order for new modes of com- munication to become broadly accepted within the academy, scholars and their institutions must take a new look at the mission of the university, the goals of scholarly publishing, and the processes through which scholars con- duct their work. We must collectively consider what new technologies have to offer us, not just in terms of the cost of publishing or access to publica- tions, but in the ways we research, write, and review." (10)
"in an environment in which more and more discourse is available, some of the most important work that we can do as scholars may more closely resemble contemporary editorial or curato- rial practices, bringing together, highlighting, and remixing significant ideas in existing texts rather than remaining solely focused on the production of more ostensibly original texts. We must find ways for the new modes of authorship that digital networks will no doubt facilitate—process-focused, collaborative, remix-oriented—to “count” within our systems of valuation and priority." (12-13)
"Mario Biagioli (2002) argues that a deeper excavation of the genealogy of peer review suggests that its origins may lie in seventeenth- century book publishing, and that peer review of journal articles formed a significantly later stage in the process’s development. Biagioli ties the estab- lishment of editorial peer review to the royal license that was required for the legal sale of printed texts; this mode of state censorship, employed to prevent sedition or heresy, was delegated to the royal academies through the imprimatur granted them at the time of their founding. " (21)
"Biagioli’s argument leads us to understand peer review not simply as a system that produces disciplinarity in an intellectual sense, but as a mode of disciplining knowledge itself, a mode that is “simultaneously repressive, productive, and constitutive” of academic ways of knowing (2002, 11)." (21)
"On the one hand, peer review has its deep origins in state censorship, as developed through the establishment and membership practices of state- supported academies; on the other, peer review was intended to augment the authority of a journal’s editor rather than assure the quality of a journal’s products. Given those two disruptions in our contemporary notions about the purposes of peer review, it may be less surprising to find that the mode of formalized review that we now value in the academy seems not to have become a universal part of the scientific method, and thus of the scholarly publishing process, until as late as the middle of the twentieth century" (23)
"The anonymous peer-review process, how- ever, effectively closes the author out of the main chronology of the con- versation, which instead becomes a backchannel discussion between the reviewer and the editor. As such, the author is hindered in her ability to learn from the review process even if she is given a copy of the reviewer’s comments, as there is no forum in which she can respond to those comments in kind." (28)

no material scarcity in electronic publishing (37)

"Writing and publishing in networked environ- ments might require a fundamental change not just in the tools with which we work, or in the ways that we interact with our tools, but in our sense of ourselves as we do that work, and in the institutional understandings of the relationships between scholars and their now apparently independent silos of production. " (55)