The Role of the Language Community in Peer-Review process for Collections

Abstract

There is a movement to facilitate peer-review processes without bias, and in an objective manner (Wiley 2006; Open Scholar 2014; COPE 2019). Several peer-review models exist including, open, blind, double-blind, and triple-blind review. Each with their arguments for overcoming possible biases. Griscom et al. (2021) in their call for papers: “Documentation Collections: Assessment and Recognition”, suggest a possibility for a new model in which communities might have a role in peer-review. We explore the potential benefits, impacts, and challenges of “community-review as peer-review” in scholarly settings. We address four issues:

1. The role of preservation institutions in influencing the review by controlling the experiential context of material interaction and engagement.

2. The responsibility of scholars to make changes based on reviewers’ comments. Theiberger et al. (2016), suggest that peer-review for corpora and collections should only occur after materials are deposited in a repository. They leave open to speculation under what circumstances a depositor should be required to make changes to the initial deposit when they receive feedback about resources under review.

3. The gradient line between community member review and community member contributor/curator.

4. The gradient line between community member review and community use of a collection.

We affirm that peer-review is important in scholarly contexts, and likewise that customer satisfaction and product evolution are important in commercial contexts. Corpora and collections often sit at the cross-roads of scholarly output and user-centric product. In a future where community engagement with language resources is embraced, peer-review objectives need to be clear. Are the reviewers reviewing the content, or the engagement experience? Additionally, when and in what ways is it appropriate to acknowledge reviewers of corpora and collections? Addressing the relationship of community engagement in relation to peer-review is an important component in the transition from language documentation to language revitalization.

Date
5 Oct, 2022 11:30
Location
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Germany

Bibliography

Thieberger, Margetts, Morey & Musgrave (2016)
, , & (). Assessing Annotated Corpora as Research Output. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 36(1). 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2016.1109428
(2013)
(). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English). Committee on Publication Ethics. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/node/19886
(2014)
(). Independent Peer Review Manifesto.
Griscom, Collister & Paterson III (2021)
, & (). Language Documentation Collections: Assessment and Recognition [Full call for papers]. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRvSJHMnWln0rlBsjmGeid9H9nJj a05NdG82M_yDHOdn6-EiU5RC6t7qPSIfnGamTfIFolAlhPDuxT_/pub
Tags:
Categories:
Content Mediums:
Hugh Paterson III
Hugh Paterson III
Collaborative Scholar

My research interests include typological patterns in articulatory phonetics; User Experience design in language tools; and graph theory applied to language and linguistic resource discovery.

Richard Griscom
Richard Griscom
Field Linguist

My research interests include field linguistics, grammatical description, and language documentation.

Lauren B. Collister
Lauren B. Collister
Director, Office of Scholarly Communication and Publishing

My research interests include Linguistics, Scholarly Publishing, Muisc.

Related