Peer Reviewed Online Publication: A Response to Chris Brady

Is it a good idea for short notes, essays, text editions, book reviews, bibliographies, newsletters, and full-length books published online by an academic blogger to be submittable for peer review according to a SBL-sponsored mechanism such that, following requested and executed revisions, a publication would count toward attaining tenure or an academic promotion?

Chris Brady thinks so. So do Chris Heard, Tim Bulkeley, and Mike Aubrey. I concur.

But I’m not sure the specifics of Brady’s proposal are the best going forward.

As I understand the proposal, it makes a hierarch in a scholar’s academic place of residence (if she or he has one) a gatekeeper in the process. I’ve heard too many horror stories of arbitrary behavior on the part of departmental chairs to feel comfortable with that.

Regardless, it’s the meat of the Brady plan that is worth thinking about some more. The proposal asks an SBL-authorized panel to peer-review, let’s say, an online grammar of New Testament Greek. Presumably, a subset of that panel would work with the author of the online grammar through necessary revisions to bring it up to a variety of standards, digital and non-digital. It’s a fabulous idea, but is it practical?

Don’t get me wrong: I think that a peer-review process for online grammars of ancient languages is necessary. But a team of scholars qualified and willing to do so needs to be put together. That is no small order.

Online resources have plenty of added value relative to dead-tree resources. But if online publication is to become the new normal, online publications will need to be vetted through a process that is in part open, in part single-blind, and in part double-blind. Brady’s panel of 18 might oversee the whole, evaluate results, and establish protocol. But the same 18 could not be responsible for but a fragment of the grunt work that would be involved. After all, it is not just the electronic packaging particular content is given that is in need of peer review, but the content itself. 

Let’s say I publish a book review on my blog. For example, A Review of Muraoka's Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (2009). It gets read by a lot of people because (1) it is the first review of the book to be published; (2) is easily passed on to interested parties; (3) other bloggers pick up on it and link to it; and (4) a respected authority, in this case, Carl Conrad of the B-Greek list, plays it up. In addition, I’ve received more feedback on it from scholars and students alike than on any of the book reviews I’ve had published in print journals. (1)-(4) explain why. The added value of a well-executed online book review is enormous.

Is there a way to add more value to an on-blog book review? Is there a way for the review to count toward tenure or promotion?

There should be. To reach that end, several avenues might be pursued.

(1) The Review of Biblical Literature might change its rules, and peer-review and publish up to 5 reviews of any academic book so long as the review is submitted by an SBL member and passes muster, with review copies obtained free of charge (or not) by the reviewer, not RBL. If rules of this kind were in place, an individual might submit a review like the one I noted and, following requested and executed revisions, see it (re)published in RBL.

To be sure, the last thing Bob Buller wants is to be inundated by submitted reviews from Tonya never-heard-of-her and Ivan-never heard-of-him even if they are SBL members. And what if people join SBL in the hopes of getting a book review published in RBL?* What if people get annoyed because a review appears twice, once on-blog with an interesting comment thread attached, and again in RBL, but without the comment thread and in a watered-down, politically correct version?

(2) A peer-reviewed “Online Review of Biblical Studies,” ORBS for short, might be founded. The editorial board would consist of a mix of established scholars, not-so-established scholars, and students with a commitment to (a) the development of a peer-reviewed rolling corpus of electronic reviews, inclusive of (b) fresh reviews of classics in the field, not just newly released BS; (c) less-than-book-length scholarship such as articles; (d) a meta-tabulation of all reviews published in journals covered by ATLA, JSTOR, OTA, NTA, etc., sortable by author, date, title, series, and publishing house; (e) where appropriate, a meta-review of reviews of a specific work. The (a) – (e) combination, regardless of whether ORBS were to provide review copies free of charge to reviewers in all instances, would make ORBS the go-to source of reviews of biblical scholarship bar none.

(3) Not the book review itself, but, say, the book review section of the blog in which it appears might be submitted for peer review to an SBL-authorized panel of the kind Chris Brady has in mind. If modifications on the panel’s suggestion were made, not to individual book reviews if I understand Chris’s proposal, but to the book review section as a concept and as a digital resource, the book review section would, in the eyes of SBL, be deemed worthy of counting toward tenure.

Which approach is best? If I were an employee of SBL, I would cross (1) with (2) and skip (3). Since I’m not, I would be game to working on something like (2) to be submitted in due course to the process envisioned in (3).

*Sounds like a great business plan to me. 

Comments

[Mike Aubrey]

I sympathize with your points. This is something that I've struggled with since much of my own work that has appeared online "doesn't count" as it were toward by CV, despite the fact much of what I've written has received approval from a wide ranging body of scholars from biblical studies, to classics, to linguistics.

As one who has been developing a Greek grammar (currently hidden and unavailable) for a couple years now that will likely appear online (though I've talked with one publisher and an organization that has a publishing branch), I continue to wonder what to do on this point.

At least one scholar has told me directly that I should submit some of my reviews to journals for publication so that I can put them in my CV.

What I'm saying is that I like Chris' proposal because it *could* provide a beneficial outlet for my work. Your hesitancy makes sense, but I would be interested in any suggestions you might have for someone in my situation. If you have any thoughts, perhaps you could send me an e-mail?

[JohnFH]

Hi Mike,

You can email me if you wish, but I will respond to your comment above here.

Given that the Brady proposal, or a variation thereof, not to mention ORBS as I envision it in the post, are only ideas, not reality, you would do well to repackage and submit things on your blog that would qualify as reviews, short notes, or articles to peer-reviewed journals.

It's a long drawn-out process and not without its share of surprises, but an absolutely necessary one at this point.

As for a full-length grammar, I think all grammars should begin their life online. After a grammar has stood the acid test of use in a classroom setting and is modified in light of that experience; after a grammar is commented on extensively, online, offline, both, then and only then is it ready to be submitted to further peer review via the print publication process and the marketplace.

If that makes sense, one might put up a draft online grammar, or a chapter or two thereof, on blog, with the goal of receiving appropriate feedback. If you find a print publisher, the publisher might ask you to take the online version down. That would be unfortunate, but a price worth paying to get your grammar vetted further as outlined above.

[Mike Aubrey]

Speaking of online Peer-Revew, Bryn Mawr Classical Review turned 20 years old today:

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-11-51.html