When Kim Il-Jong recently visited Moscow on a surreal train journey, he proudly informed Vladimir Putin he was travelling in the armoured train given to his father as a present by Stalin. As analysts of the regime agree, this merely illustrates the extraordinary, reverential detail with which Kim and his founding father Kim Il-Sung have maintained a complete Stalinist state into the 21st century:
About two seconds after that realization, it would begin to fail epically, for the obvious reasons. Will so much of the new electronic orality once buzzing around in public fora cloister now in semi-private spaces?
The beauty of digital media, as Henry Jenkins points out, is its urging for convergence. The moment one event happens in ones and zeroes, it has the opportunity to happen in another. A robust conversation quickly developed between Richard Burt, Eileen Joy and Karl Steel, with a bit from myself - and rapidly had little to do with the rest of my FB life, principally concerned as it is right now with whether my wife and I are actually going to be able to buy this amazing house in South Orange, NJmy second life as a roller derby refereeand the joy that is my two-year old daughter, Hazel.
So I brought the conversation to ITM. Here it is, because it has grown to a point where it demands more voices and a broader public. And this, perhaps, is the hybrid model we can think about more - using private social networks, when warranted, as springboards over to the public blog.
It is in some way, no different than the process by which we develop scholarship all the time: The topic is also deliciously meta, as the open review and comment of scholarly ideas is exactly what was going on in the FB conversation, and what happens here at ITM all the time. So have at it, friends.
Richard Burt An interesting article. I just forwarded a link to a Shakespeare listserv. But I think it is no accident it came out in August the slowest month of the annual news cycyle I question the hyperbolic?
Now we have the reviewing process exposed in a single issue of SQ.
But it is still peer reviewed. Rowe asked people in the field to participate in the comments. I declined, on two occasions, out of disinterest.
But does anyone who reads SQ, accessible only through subscription or libraries, really care about the comments from non-specialists from space flights? Will anyone read this genetic, pre-publication material that usually drops away from publications like booster rockets do?
More crucially, there seems something fraudulent about the SQ "experiment. How likely is that? The difference is that SQ now has a kind of dead blogging trail of the revision process of a faux peer-reviewed process. Did the academics who were invited by Rowe to comment really say all that they thought?
Or did they censor themselves since their comments could be read by anyone, instead of just by members of the editorial board, as is usually the case?
As for the author, would you really want to have people commenting on your essay as you were revising it? Would you seriously respond to all of the comments? How critical, in every sense of the word, are these comments? Do they really rise to the status of criticism?
Might it not be better to proceed with the customary dialogic standards already in place the author if an article is already engaged in dialogue with other critics? Can anyone explain to me the value of this experiment?
Or why anyone should want to adopt it? Speed seems to be the only stated advantage, but in fact, nothing is sped up in the SQ publication process. The journal will still publish in the same quarterly way it did before.
Is there a NEED to go faster when we already use email and can send our written work to people who will give us useful feedback before and after we we submit it? And why would editors want to give non-specialists as much authority as non-specialists? What does the editor do, then? Accept essays by plebiscite?
Authors understand themselves to be competing for Academic idol? Please help me out here. We few, we happy few? Karl Steel the size of a crowd is relative.
How many eyes typically see an article before it goes to press? BUT - as editor on this, one thing we are excited about is how all the contributors will be more easily plugged into all the other contributions, should they desire. This is something much rarer, and logistically obdurate, in traditional modes of publishing.Nov 16, · Write your critique.
Write a Peer Review Report. How to. Write a Feature Article. How to. Write Articles. How to. Create a Good Article. If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a 90%().
Related Posts. The Ocean Cleanup, Part 1: Alternatives to reduce ocean plastic; Where is the best place to put your ocean cleanup device? Not where currently proposed. Journal Article Critique Example Author: Political Science / Public Administration Created Date: 1/5/ AM.
1) Be professional. It's called peer review for a reason. You, putative reviewer, are the peer. If you don't do it for them why should they do it for you? JUST WAR AND IRAQ: I said below that I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer on why a quick war with Iraq would not be more just than the status quo of immiserating sanctions.
Now Glenn Reynolds links to a Michael Walzer essay on a war with Iraq that provides one response. The key grafs: "Defending the embargo, the American overflights, and the . Here is a really good example of a scholary research critique written by a student in EDRS The student who submitted this paper last semester earned a .