Writing knowledge: Wikipedia, public review, and peer review.

SCHOLARLY peer review; PROFESSIONAL peer review; SCHOLARLY publishing; WIKIPEDIA; REPRODUCIBLE research; THEORY of knowledge

Two systems of knowledge production are identified and addressed by this study: peer review and public review. The peer-review system is defined, its goals are stated, its participants and their roles are identified, and its affordances are summarized. The double-blind journal submission system is examined as an example of peer review. Three enduring challenges for peer review are identified: lack of reproducibility, costs of publication, and undue influence of sponsorship. This study also identifies and defines a new concept: public review. Similarly, the goals of public review are stated, its participants and their roles are identified, and its affordances are summarized. Wikipedia is examined as a primary example of public review. The challenges of public review reaching its goals are enumerated, with uneven development, participation, and representation identified as enduring problems. Lastly, examples of the differing features and affordances of each system recombining to achieve new results are envisioned by identifying examples projects. In conclusion, the study argues that peer review and public review should be understood and contextually applied for their relative strengths rather than criticized for failing to deliver the goals of the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studies in Higher Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)