Peer Review

[Phil_the_Author]

Dale,

A serious peer review process entails acceptance that what is being porposed for publication have enough merit to warrant it. many a fine research paper has been refused publication because the "peers" who "reviewed" it didn't feel that it deserved consideration or was blatantly incorrect. The more prestigious the publication more stringent the peer review process is. 

As I said, I have no problem showing anything I write to others before hand for comments, but I feel strongly that a serious peer review process cannot work on GCA.com. For the record, before ran published my In My Opinion piece on Tilly I shared it with 5 or 6 others to get their opinion of it. You suggested that "what better place to find qualified people than some of those posting here on GCA?" You'd think that would be the case, but it really isn't.

One thing that my Tillinghast research has taught me is that the more you know about one architect the less you can know about others. It is a time problem. Very few golf historians or researchers can devote themselves full-time to the study of a single architect let alone several or more. So with limited amounts of time, those who've had the ability to concentrate on one particular architect, in my case Tilly, especially if they can spend more time than most, and in my case I spend most of my time on projects involving researching and writing on Tilly, where then can one find those others with a similar knowledge base that ideas, articles, theses or books be run past for advice and/or critique?

Having a passion for golf architecture and a better than average knowledge of the genre and the architects involved in it simply isn't enough to enable one to be able to perform proper serious peer review on it. Heck, after responding earlier in this thread to Dale and offering to look at anything he writes, I don't think he'll mind if I say that he emailed me and said that he is working on a piece about Macan.

I will love to look at it, but even with all of my research time, I freely admit that I can't possibly provide him with any sort of serious peer review of what he will produce as I know very little about him and his work. Can I and will I give him encouragement and maybe suggest a different way of phrasing something? Absolutely I will. Can I aid the quality of the knowledge, facts and conslusion that it will contain? Absolutely not.

That is why I don't think serious peer review will work on GCA and why having Ran as arbiter of what will or won't be published on here is both proper and reasonable. All "Peers" will have plent of opportunity to "Review" what is published in numerous threads...

[Tom MacWood]

I'm familiar with peer review in science and medicine, but I've not heard of such a process when it comes to documenting history. How has the process worked in the past with historians?

[Dale Jackson]

I'm familiar with peer review in science and medicine, but I've not heard of such a process when it comes to documenting history. How has the process worked in the past with historians?

Tom, can't speak to historians but my educational background is a graduate degree in political science and any serious journal in that field always uses peer review before publishing.

Dale,

A serious peer review process entails acceptance that what is being porposed for publication have enough merit to warrant it. many a fine research paper has been refused publication because the "peers" who "reviewed" it didn't feel that it deserved consideration or was blatantly incorrect. The more prestigious the publication more stringent the peer review process is. 

Philip, as I mentioned above, I am familiar with the peer review process and am not advocating for that here.  Just an opportunity to draw on  the collective wisdom of other researchers and authors before making my own work public.

[Tom MacWood]

Dale
Are you referring to a thesis or dissertation, which is often part of the graduate degree process in a number of different fields? Beyond the graduate degree process is it common for writers of political science to present their essays, books, papers to board for for peer review?

[Ian Andrew]

Phil,

"I'm sorry Ian, but I must disagree with any and all who think it is even possible for a peer review of proposed "In My Opinion" pieces or that it should be done at all. We must put some faith and trust into the process that Ran has set up and in Ran's ability to accept and/or reject these pieces."

I was not suggesting that this group/site would peer review (too much emotional baggage on this site ).

My comments were about finding a group of peers, whom you respect, to review your research and ask questions about the conclusions. In all research we begin to draw conclusions from what we know, often its interesting to hear the alternative or some confirmation that you are on an interesting path.

[Steve Lang]

  in grad school its you and your advisor, rarely classmates.. and you have to present and defend your work.. all by yourself.. in front of a handfull of professors/experts judging every word/analysis..

in peer reviewed journals its largely PhD's judging other PhD's work..

if someone wants to have peer reviewed gca stuff, and get all serious, they should start something independent of gca.com..

being a poster?  a lot more fun! 

[Dale Jackson]

Dale
Are you referring to a thesis or dissertation, which is often part of the graduate degree process in a number of different fields? Beyond the graduate degree process is it common for writers of political science to present their essays, books, papers to board for for peer review?

Tom, I am referring to original research published in academic journals by both post doctoral academics and senior graduate students, not graduate thesis and dissertations.

[Neil_Crafter]

As someone - an amateur - involved in golf architecture historical research I would suggest that the idea of peer review is a non starter. I don't see it as necessary. The "In my Opinion" piece would then effectively become "In Our Opinion". I would be extremely surprised if historians used peer review at all. It is for scientific endeavours and even then is not foolproof.