RhetNet Cafe
A cafe. Ordinary. Beige.
Obvious exits: out to The TechnoRhetoricians' Bar and Grill
You see Stoogeway Grand Piano, Burke,
and Projectorator here.

Peer Review, Kuhn's Legacy, Nested Processes
& the Future of Quality in Online Publication

Thursday, June 27
8:00 EDT

The text below is an edited version. What was removed, mainly, was off-topic chatter, some of the emotes, and most of the player-movement messages.

--Eric Crump
co-facilitator (with Mick Doherty, Editor of Kairos)

Eric says, "I reckon we should get this show officially going"

Eric shows slide #1.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

               Welcome to RhetNet Cafe!

     Like RhetNet's other venues, the point of RhetNet Cafe 
     to capture and continue conversations. The conversations
     that happen here will become part of the RhetNet collection
     of texts on the web (http://www.missouri.edu/rhetnet/). 
     And, depending on the subject & all, these conversations 
     might be appropriate for other publishing venues, print or
     net. Efforts to publish these things elsewhere, though, will
     happen in consultation and cooperation with the folks doing the
     talking. So it's important to take a minute to introduce ourselves
     here, and for guests to include their email addresses as well as
     their names.
     So, who are we?

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Eric is eric crump, university of missouri
booboo is Jane Lasarenko, WTAMU, aka jane@wtamu.edu
PeteS is Pete Sands, U Maine at Presque Isle
Mick is Mick Doherty, Editor, Kairos -- and tonight, Vanna to
 Eric's Pat.
sandyet is sandye thompson, tx woman's u
JanetC is Janet Cross outta Northridge...CAl Stat that is
cath is catherine spann, univ. of arkansas at little rock
Amber_Guest says, "I am David Ross;  I teach English as a Second
 Language at Houston Community College:  ross_d@hccs.cc.tx.us"
JanetC snickers at Mick.
Camille is Camille Langston @Texas Woman's U
JanetC eyes Mick's wardrobe warily.
Mick  [Vanna] introduces Mike Salvo, Texas Tech

Eric shows slide #2.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     On 23 June 1996, EduPage published the following item...

     Scientists attending a conference in Denmark sponsored by
     the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
     (OECD) were almost unanimous in dismissing electronic challenges
     to the tradition of peer review for scientific publications, 
     although there was also wide agreement about the benefits
     of the Internet for the exchange of scientific information
     (through the speeding up of peer review and the developing use of
     the Internet for distribution of 'preprints' that allow 'open
     peer commentary'). (The Economist 22 Jun 96) 

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Amber_Guest says, "OK, OK already, what's all this about Kuhn's
Eric [to david]: janet's gonna shed light on that one :)
MikeS [Kairic] hugs beckster [Aglow] warmly.
Mick says, "[Amber] the concept of paradigm shift is becoming
 very important to online publishers.  paradigms can shift
 without actually disappaering ... but perhaps we'll get into
 that in detail later."

Eric shows slide #3.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Some questions come immediately to mind:

     What do these scientists mean by 'peer review'?
     How is it different in practice and function from 'peer
     What do we mean by 'peer review'?
     How do our interpretations compare with traditional
     What difference does the medium for scholarly work make? 
     How will scholarship and peer review be transformed by the

     If those are overriding concerns for this discussion, some 
     comments made this week on Rhetnt-L might serve as catalysts
     for the conversation...

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

PeteS says, "and what is the difference between the "challenge"
 posed by e-communication, versus the speeding up of the peer
 review process, which i take to be a good thing?"
booboo says, "Does anyone know about peer review practices in
 the sciences?"
Eric [to david]: for my part, i have a hunch scholarship's most
 jarring shift in the move from print to net publishing is going
 to come with the effects on peer review
Mick says, "I do, Jane ... my whole family is in academia and
 I'm the only non-scientist.  We compare notes allatime."
beckster says, "no, but they can be brutal in humanities...got
 to see three colleague's review...yikes, they were *mean*"
booboo [to Mick]: is it analogous to the humanities' process?
 mean-ness is next to godliness?
beckster says, "sort of like the blind review gives folks a
 license to be slopppy and brutal. I sure wasn't impressed"
douglas has seen "peer reviews" of grant proposals, but not of
 manuscripts (in the sciences)...
booboo [to beckster]: I know...I've received from pretty nasty
 ones...worthless too in terms of constructive advice.
PeteS says, "but that's not always the case ... sometimes you
 get good reviews ... helpful suggestions and all."
Mick says, "Not really, Jane -- my father is on the edboard of 7
 or 8 journals and he says what he's looking for is mostly data
 to test.  we seem much more interested in stylistic comments,
 which makes sense, I guess."
booboo [to Mick]: that's what I figured.
douglas says, "Query: why _is_ the peer review process blind? "
Mick got a brutal "nyahh nyahh, you suck" from Rhetocric Review
Eric says, "so is that what peer review has become: brutal
 filtering? is that what print-based scholars are trying to
 protect? I bet they wouldn't put it those terms :)"
beckster nods to booboo...I was familiar w/ one colleague's
 work, and the reviewer only read first and last chunk....made
 suggestions about info *included* in middle!!
Eric [to douglas]: objectivity (which folks still seem to
 believe in)
booboo got a comment that she didn't include recent enough
 criticism--her sources were only two years prior!
Mick says, "Douglas, it isn't always."
MikeS says, "but pete, doesn't the blind part of blind review
 encourage unnecessarily harsh critique?  i know the interactive
 model *kairos* has developed drives some reviewers crazy ...
 but no one has been (obviously) mean "
Camille says, "Maybe our peer review seems more brutal because
 we focus on style (as Mick mentioned), which makes our writing
 more personal than the sciences' search for data"
beckster [to Eric]: I used to think blind reviews made it easier
 for folks to get good quality feedback...but I'm really
 questioning that now
Mick says, "[MikeS] yet our editorial board is begging for
booboo feels bad...she never got any stylistic criticism.
MikeS [to Mick]: 2/16ths
Mick likes camille's point a LOT.
PeteS says, "i didn't say it didn't mike. just saying "don't
 totalize." i've gotten really helpful blind review before ...
 and awful reviews from people who werent doing it blind."
beckster nods to mikes....thinks that the "dialogic" review
 Kairos uses is MUCH more beneficial....both sides feel a
douglas doesn't grace traci's comment with a response. And says
 to Eric, I know it isn't always (as I've experienced with
 _Kairos_!) but what I'm asking is what is the rational for
 _any_ peer review to be blind?
MikeS nods to petes, advocate o' satan
Mick says, "[MikeS] so suddenly your a fan of majority rules?
 :<) acutally, 3/9. Er, 1/3."
MikeS [Kairic] grins.
beckster [to Camille]: but a lot of the critiques I've seen are
 also about content
booboo says, "Strikes me that most peer review constitutes
 opportunities for reviewers to blow their own horns and
 critical positions...rarely have I seen review comments that
 help the writer improve her position."
Camille says, "Doesn't blind peer review remove subjectivity?"
Mick says, "remove subjectivity?"
JanetC asks Camille, "Can anything remove subjectivity...and if
 so....would that be a good thing?"
Eric says, "i think the problem with blind review--and with any
 review in which reviewers remain uncredited--is that writers
 and reviewers are put in oppositional relation to each other. "
MikeS says, "devil's advocate -- advocate o' satan -- was trying
 to be flip and apparently failed ;-}"
booboo says, "Well, Mick, I wonder how many negative reviews
 Andrea's gotten if the reviewer knows she's the author."
Mick says, "making reviews blind *allows* for MORE subjectivity,
 I'd think."
beckster [to Camille]: NOTHING removes subjectivity.  But I
 think that's what the aim was.  we were just naive enough to
 buy into that
PeteS says, "i know mike, that's why the*page*"
Eric says, "they might both hope for quality, but it seems (my
 impression anyway) that reviewers are loyal to the Discipline
 and writers are loyal to the topic at hand and to the audience
 Out There"
MikeS [Kairic] grins.
douglas [to booboo]: but if the peer-review process was made
 available, perhaps some of those reviewers would find it in
 their own best interests to do a good job (available to the
 end-readers, that is).
Mick says, "{jane} oh, you know, i was thinking double-blind
 --the author no t knowing who the reviewers are. which allows
 for more leeway to be harsh."
beckster [to Eric]: I think reviewers are loyal to their OWN
 subjective viewpoints more than the discipline!
Mick oohs Eric "Out There" ... tres positivist!
PeteS likes eric's phrasing there.
Eric can't remember which slide was which now, so just for the
 sake of healthy randomness...
Camille says, "Well, let's see, who has a better chance of being
 positivly reviewed?  Camille Nobody or Great God of Rhetoric?"
Eric says, "I'm going to pitch em out there now and again just
 to see what happens"
booboo says, "I *thought*, obviously mistakenly, that the
 reviewers were "blind"
Eric [to beckster]: so the Protection of the Discipline ploy is
 just that, a ploy?
JanetC laughs at booboo.
Mick says, "That depends, booboo. Sometimes it's single-blind,
 sometimes it's double-blind. I'm not sure which is worse."
Eric says, "hi paula"
booboo says, "I also think it's a way of ensuring that certain
 authors continue to get published while others are silenced."
MikeS wonders why print journals are so derned nervous if
 on-line peer review can (ostensibly) be so easily rebuked and
 invalidated?  methinks (s)he doth protest too much.
JanetC wonders at a discipline which needs protextion...hmmm...mu
 st not be very strong on its own merit

Eric shows slide #4.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Suzanne Cherry:

     The question then becomes, how do we convince colleagues of
     the quality of our communities and communication? How do we
     prove ourselves? How do we receive validation? Those are harder 
     questions and ones I'm not sure I can answer.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

beckster [to Eric]: Based on my limited experience, I'd say so. 
 and it's a function of how specialized folks are, as well as
 the pressure for them to publish, etc.  as individuals rather
 than members of a community
Mick says, "Ah, validations. What *Counts*???"
Eric says, "oh. btw, the rest of the slides are from notes
 grabbed off rhetnt-l by mr mick"
douglas [to booboo]: it seems that most often both sides are
 blind-but why not (aside from logistics) have both a blind and
 interactive peer review process, one following the other? That
 way there are no immediate judgements made based on the
 author'sethos, and then the reviewers will be more likely to
 contribute constructive criticism in the following phase...
Claudine [Bonni of the Spamketeers] slips in quietly, waves to
 all who are here.
Eric says, "oh. that worked out good. take mick's last comment
 as one answer to suzanne"
Mick bows gracefully and reveals the last letter of the puzzle
 ... _Crumpean_Methodologies_
MikeS has disconnected.
booboo [to douglas]: I agree...I'm proposing that process now
 for an online journal.
beckster nods to douglas...at least as a starting point.  But
 I'm unconvinced as to the consistency of blind reviews.....
Eric figures with RhetNet, we simply say that *conversations we
 find interesting count* and if traditional scholars don't
 agree, they don't have to play
Eric says, "that is, *participation in conversations* counts (in
 terms of professional development, if not advance)"
booboo says, "I also think we need to present more papers at
 traditional conferences...inform our colleagues of the work
 that's being done on the net."
Mick says, "Okay, Eric, I will Play Grumpy Old Traditionalist
booboo says, "Drag em in to take a look."
Eric [to booboo]: yeah, like the Kairoi did so nicely at C&W in
beckster says, "and advertise our e-publications in other ways,
Eric [to Mick]: fire away !
JanetC pokes the grumpy ole trad
Mick says, "[to Eric] "Conversations" COnversations? What's this
 mean on your vitae? You hazve a plae called conversations?
 Tenure ... DENIED!"
douglas says, "Interactive pee-review seems like a good idea
 (and this goes on to address Suzane's auery as well) if the
 reviewers are recognised as "experts" in the fields and
 subjects they review, then they will be more likely to protect
 their reputations as such by giving constructive criticism, and
 the resultant paper will be percieved as being validated by the
 veritable seal of approval from those reviewers."
Eric puts up his dukes
PeteS says, "of course, there *are* books and papers out there
 in trad forums calling for more electronic scholarship
Eric [to Mick]: fine. don't want no stinkin tenure anyway if
 it's going to be that way about it
Mick .oO(pee-review?)
Eric says, "no wait. I can do better than that..."
beckster nods to douglas...THERE's the *ethos* that blind
 reviewed articles seem to have
MikeS decides to be juvenile and laffs at silly typos
beckster says, "seems to me if these folks are experts, they'll
 be responsible enough to give good advice whether blind or
Eric says, "I think what we're valuing is really the *same
 thing* that scholars have always valued. They don't call it
 conversation, they call it publication, but *that's what
 publication IS*"
JanetC says to Mick, "Welp. Good that you be upfromt cause who
 would want to work for you, you ole GRUMP"
Mick says, "you better do better than that eric -- lots of
 people in this room probably DO want tenure someday, i bet."
booboo nods to Eric
douglas sends mikeS his "sample bottle" for expert pee-review. 
PeteS says, "but they *do* call it conversation ... its one of
 the most popular metaphors around for scholarship, eric."
douglas agrees with Eric 100%
JanetC says to Mick, "Actually the admins I know and have met
 simply aren't like that....times *are* changing...somewhat"
booboo says, "Ah, but there's the crunch, they call it that and
 nod their heads until we who engage try to call it that too."
MikeS says, "long, drawn out, impenetrable, unbearable print
 based conversation ;-)"
Mick says, "But this, Pete -- this here, this MOO right now --
 this really is formatted like a conversation, juvenile
 pee-=review jokes and all.  This, I the Traditionalist Saith,
 Doth Not Counteth."
PaulaP says, "i know that the new technical writing grad prof
 here was not only hired for her Contributions to the dialogues
 but also for "
Eric says, "so what we can argue is that--as different as they
 may appear at first--scholarly conversations on the net are
 actually strongly rooted in scholarly conversations in print.
 they differ in speed, in convention, in citation, but they are,
 at heart, the same thing"
PeteS says, "taylor and erbin ... though ... even call MUDing
 and other e-forms a *responsibility* for scholars today."
booboo [to Eric]: right.
PaulaP says, "her ability to work between academia and the "real
JanetC says to Mick, "Try to refute a more foraml "traditional"
 paper built on this convo though"
PeteS says, "and they do that in a pretty traditional forum ...
 a greenwood press book."
Mick auuuggghs "real world"
Camille says, "So, I'm getting that collaboration (positive peer
 review) is to be equated with e-journals, whereas individualism
 (negative peer review) is equated with print journals.  I think
 this is what everyone is saying, but I'm wondering how true
 these bi-polar assertions hold."
Eric says, "so we create a conversational scholarly journal and
 call conversation publication. now we're even speaking their
 language :)"
Eric [to PeteS]: good point they got there
JanetC says to Mick, "Look, you ole buffalo! You be way behind
 the times, and the people in the dept are laughing at you"
MikeS [Kairic] nods at Camille.
Mick says, "Camille, I like the polarity you draw there, because
 it really supports the idea Tari brought up in the e-mail
 conversation ..."
booboo [to Eric]: right; we need to do some swift pr work
PeteS says, "[to eric] my point is that i think the pendulum has
 already swung."
Mick says, "That we, in talking about this stuff, sound
 *arrogant* -- like e-journals are *better* than print journals."
Claudine nods in agreement with booboo
booboo agrees with PeteS somewhat
Mick says, "[JanetC] ah,but i have tenure and you do not."
beckster [to Camille]: I'm sure there's a lot more grey area
 than that....didn't mean to dichotomize.  I was just wondering
 why peer-reviewed pub. were so valued when the review process
 can be downright shoddy
MikeS says, "each print convention is good at its own thing --
 print is a slow moving, fairly dependable form.  i'd like to
 kep it for what it's good for."
douglas [to Mick]: but they are better!
Mick doesnt really have tenure -- his Old Grumpy Traditionalist
 character got it back in '47 tho.
PeteS nods mikes ... sanity
beckster [to Mick]: don't you think that's a defensive reaction??
Mick says, "Doug! they are NOT!"
Camille thinks e-journals certaintly have the potential to be
booboo will get tenure but only cuz the Deans and admin are more
 open to the scholarly work being done on the net than her
PeteS wonders why "better" instead of *different*
sandyet nods PeteS
Eric [to booboo]: yeah! traditionally the academy shuns
 'marketing' but that's a big part of reputation and influence.
 it's not just doing important things, but attracting attention
 to those things too!
Jade_Guest says, "why should one be "better" than the other?"
douglas [to booboo]: actually interactive peeR review can be
 instantiated in print journals--it just takes more work. And I
 haven't seen it done in either the humanities or the sciences.
MikeS says, "print has a 1000 years of experince on e-jourals. 
 compaing them just ain't fair"
beckster cheers booboo and her deans!
Mick says, "they're different. they do different things. don't
 introduce the word "better" or the converstation stops dead,
 like at Victor's panel at the confernce last month."
Mick says, "[beckster] BooBoo and teh Deans? Weren't the a
 1950's Doo-wop group?"
booboo nods and adds they serve different purposes..both valid
 and necessary
beckster rolls her eyes at mick
PeteS wonders if booboo means doowop or the deans
Claudine laughs at the juxtaposition of mick and booboo's last
 two commnts
beckster says, "amen about them being different but equally
Eric has to go wipe a certain little bottom. brb. but will leave
 you with...
Mick says, "right, but still, in TPR committess, the one with
 traditon is *valued* more ... for whatever reason. "

Eric shows slide #5.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Mark Gellis:

     We can also use a little "blackmail." If any of them would
     be willing, why not get some of the really big names in one of 
     the more conservative areas of English studies, to publish 
     'e-version only" articles...for anyone in that field, an
     article by such a big name is a must, and it would force them to
     use the technology to get a copy. It would also be a strong
     argument in forcing them to accept e-publishing (via the credibility of
     the big name...if they accept it, it must be okay).

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

beckster giggles at Eric's possible pee-review
Camille says, "But if e-jounals do not strive for improvement,
 won't they be the same as print journals only electronic?"
Mick stands and applauds Mark Gellis (in absentia)
PeteS lol at beckster
booboo says, "Well, Kairos did that with Andrea, no?"
MikeS [Kairic] nods.
Mick nods vigorously. It's called Ethos-Leeching
douglas says, "comparing print and e-journals may or may not be
 useful, but the peer-review questions we are addressing are
 really germane to both venues."
booboo says, "I know...I use her for lots of stuff!"
MikeS says, "yeah -- it was the most-hit article.  but i wonder
 what that accomplished, really ..."
beckster says, "or guilt by association...:-)"
PeteS says, "there's a pedantic name for it already, mick? how
Mick says, "it bought us some readers, Mike. That was the goal."
booboo says, "I think that accomplishes a lot."
JanetC waits for Andrea to MOO before she decides....
PeteS says, "as i recall from the time you were working on it
 mike, that was what you set as your goal."
MikeS says, "but that wasn't the only goal -- borrowed ethos for
 kairos, yes ... but also to change perceptions of on-line pub."
Mick admits that compared to Cousin Eric's RhetNet, Kairos is
 pretty traditional ... but it's a spectrum
beckster says, "and, frankly, wasn't andrea pursued because of
 her openness to this kind of forum?"
booboo says, "Marketing, unfortunately, is the key, and we need
 to seriously address the kind(s) of review processes that will
 gain us the most publicity, respect"
Claudine has disconnected.
JanetC notes that Lunsford is KNOWN for pushing boudaries...so?
 Try getting..hmm...some ole goat like that grumpy trad dude on.
JanetC points at Mick-the-traditionalist.
Claudine has connected.
booboo says, "Well, you use what's available, no?"
douglas thinks one of the main benefits of e-journals is seeing
 how *any* type of publishing may be different from the
 traditional models currently in use (and I use the word
 currently rather losely here).
MikeS agrees with janetc
PeteS says, "a lot of the grumpy ole goats are on listserv ...
 why not Kairos?"
PaulaP says, "i never remember these things "
booboo says, "The grumpy goats won't get on until the Andreas
beckster [to booboo]: do you think review process overshadows
 big names?   Or is the other way around?  Just wondering....coul
 d we establish ourselves as respectable despite our review
Mick says, "[Grumpy Traditionalist] not a chance? Why shold I
 learn technology I'm never gonna use?"
Jade_Guest says, "will good marketing help us to change the
 tenure processes?  or will it just get us known?"
Eric says, "mick's an interesting critter: a radical
 traditionalist. or is that a traditional radicalist? "
Eric mulls that one for a bit
beckster wonders if the grumpy goats will *ever* get on
booboo says, "I want to establish ourselves as respectable
 *because* of our review processes"
Mick laughs Eric. I like that.
booboo says, "However different from what currently exists that
 they are."
JanetC thinks grumpy ole goats are on listservs so they can
beckster [to Jade_Guest]: my guess is that it'll get us known,
 which can't hurt in tenure review
PeteS nods janetc
Eric says, "known is good"
traci says, "depends upon what you're known for"
Eric figures it's better to be notorious than ignored
JanetC says, "They don't even seem to realize how many laugh at
 what they say...but they get their...umm...jollies..."
beckster nods to eric....knows of some folks w/ tenure who
 circumvented the "traditional" and still got tenure w/ no book,
douglas [to booboo]: I think that's a good idea--and I think an
 interactive review process can add to the respectability
 quotient if it is properly exploited.
MikeS prefers infamous -- you have to have critics if you're
 going to stick your neck out
Mick wonders about this concept: Eric and I briefly discussed
 teh idea of putting *this* MOO up for review with CCC or RR or
 some such. Knowing that, do you suddenly change your tone of
 contribution? (We would get permissions from all involved
 first, of course -- but the question stands)
Jade_Guest says, "or will we just be known as that "on the
 periphery" group?"
PeteS says, "why not Pre/text ... "
booboo agrees wholeheartedly if we take out references to booboo
 and the Deans.
PeteS says, "challenge them to challenge another boundary ...
 them? him."
Claudine [to Jade_Guest]: doubt that--numbers are growing, and
 time is on our side here.
douglas [to Mick]: would you edit out the scatalogical comments
 or leave them in?
MikeS would be *more* outrageous
traci says, "well, i wouldn't have said what i just said. i
 woulda just stayed quiet"
Mick says, "See! That's exactly mypoint. I made a pee-review
 joke.  Do we edit that out?"
JanetC ponders traditional rattlesnakes-in-the-grass
booboo says, "NO~!"
beckster [to Mick]: undoubtedly, if we knew this was *destined*
 for print, the tone would change.....hey, we're rhetoricians....
 we understand about audience, purpose, etc.
Eric says, "and this can work to our advantage in more ways than
 one. what if you become known as a scholar who risks publishing
 in these weird e-journals. perhaps a department full of old
 school scholars will sail your CV into the circular file, BUT:
 would you want to work with that gang? wouldn't your interests
 be thwarted at every turn? wouldn't you have to wait for them
 all to retire before you could have fun? "
PeteS thinks it depends ... is it an article or a transcript?
JanetC exclaims to Mick, "NO WAY!"
Mick nods beck. I like that distinction
booboo [to beckster]: good point
MikeS [Kairic] nods at beckster [Aglow].
Eric says, "NOOOOO thanks. I *want* to be screen out of
 situations where I would be screened out"
traci says, "i don't think i'd be able to write at all really"
Camille agrees with Eric
Eric [to beckster]: this is destined for print
MikeS says, "good point, eric"
Jade_Guest says, "if everyone knew this was going to print,
 would the comments about andrea change??"
beckster grins at eric
Eric waits to see how beckster's tone changes :)
douglas agrees with beckster--at this point if we want something
 like this published, then we'd have to really work on it. Maybe
 in the future we could leave the banter in to a greater extent.
booboo [to Eric]: I agree, but I also feel that you can only
 change the system from within...if you're out, you don't have a
 say anymore.
Claudine [to Eric]: "so do you edit or not, if it's destined for
beckster glows a safe, faint peach now
Mick says, "beck, that takes us nback to Cam's earlier point
 though -- we think differntly about e-space if we know it may
 be "destined" for print. The reverse is not true.  E-journals
 are the little sibling on the block in that regard."
Eric [to booboo]: I used to think that too. I'm no longer
JanetC says, "Andrea would be sorely disappointed if that were
 the case...."
PaulaP says, "PeteS it seems to me it would be more of a
 transcript than an article...."
beckster nods to douglas....would imagine that, as these types
 of snippets are more accepted in print, the tone won't change
 as much
booboo [to Eric]: I'm not that convinced either...seems I don't
 have much of a say regardless.
Mick says, "Leave the banter? Wouldn't that be *misrepresenting
 * moospace to readers of the journal? (print journal) ... then
 if they visit, they end up "this isn't what i thot ... i'm
 outta here""
Eric [to booboo]: I'm beginning to think that institutions only
 change in response to pressure from without. the people within
 are put to work enacting those changes, but they don't provoke
PeteS says, "[to paulap] then you can't edit it all. period.
 ever. nada edit."
JanetC says, "Ya gonna edit the life outta the conversation?
 Where does it stop?"
MikeS says, "well, in working with andrea, i sent her some
 rather ... interesting ... and racy comments at times (the
 nature of collaboration i guess) and since i didn't pretned to
 be something i'm not when i *worked* with her, i wouldn't
 change when talking about "her" -- talk about ethos, eh?"
beckster [to Eric]: we knew when we did the MOO for the history
 of C&W book it was destined for print.  folks were on their
 toes, but we still had a great conversation
Eric [to PaulaP]: or a trascripticle
Claudine says, "not even spelling, eric?"
Eric says, "transcripticle"
Mick .o((my managing editor was racy with andrea lunsford?)
Eric says, "gotta add that to mick's interactive historiography
 page, heh"
beckster giggles at transcripticle
beckster [to Mick]: like you wouldn't believe....:-)
PaulaP giggles 
PeteS wonders if there is dangling transcripticle around here
 somewhere ...
JanetC rolls her eyes at spillink pulice.
booboo says, "I think it would be a good idea to publish a MOO
MikeS [to booboo]: see intermoo, k 1.1, k 1.2  ;-)
mday [The Cognomial] materializes out of thin air.
Camille thinks the MOO transcript is the "different" we were
 talking about
Mick says, "I'm trying to picture "writing" this for CCC. Would
 Eric's metniong of the interactive historigraphy need a
 footnote which explained it>? O an URL in the footnote?"
beckster [to booboo]: they have been published here and
 there.....but they are tougher to read in print than as they're
Mick nods thoughtfully to MikeS
Jade_Guest says, "would those not used to this be interested in
 this transcript?  or would they find the "wading through" not
 worth it?"
cath agrees w/beckster
booboo [to MikeS]: Where?
MikeS Agrees with beckster re: reading
Eric [to beckster]: yeah. but I think we kinda forgot about its
 destination after a while. or at least that's how I remember
 it. it's been a while
Eric waves mday
Amber_Guest says, "I don't know about publishing a MOO
 transcript.  What would the reader get out of ti that he/she
 couldn't find in an editied transcript of a conversation?"
MikeS [to booboo]: kairos publishes moo-based interviews, called

Eric shows slide #6.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Albert Rouzie:

     Maybe the notion of competing with print doesn't get us
     where we want to go. We keep talking about how conversational
     genres like e-mail are different--hypertext too--from print.
     Competiton levels those differences when in fact the new media 
     are valuable precisely because they accomplish new forms of
     communication. Acceptance will be gradual, driven perhaps by citation, 
     participation, and maybe most of all, need for the knowledge 
     produced (and the process of production) by the new genres.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

beckster says, "my guess is that, if these types of things are
 destined for print, they'll need to be edited so that they are
 easier for non-MOOers to follow"
mday says, "the sense of freshness of the ideas as they happened
 and intertwined with other ideas, for one."
Amber_Guest says, "I find MOO transcripts very hard to read, and
 I don't think that the difficulty points out to anything
 particularly profound about the nature of the text."
PaulaP says, "i've used parts of IRC transcripts for papers but
 never my moo conversations "
booboo says, "Right, but it's still online, not in print"
Eric [to david]: I think moo sessions really have to be edited
 down *some* and have to be accompanied by interpretive
 commentary of some kind. 
Jade_Guest says, "if we criticize the internet for trying to
 push print classic on it, why are we trying to push print
 digital on print??"
PaulaP agrees with Eric on that one 
booboo [to Eric]: Right.  I wasn't suggesting publishing a raw
 MOO transcript alone.
beckster [to PaulaP]: we went crazy trying to edit IRc
 transcripts...finally gave up
Mick says, "there's the point i was making above, in rouzie's
 comment -- is it all about citation? so when we write for print
 we cite e-journlas? and that will enact the legitimation?"
Eric [to david]: there's too much of the moment here. taken out
 of its (real)time, the conversation is sapped of its native
 energy, which informs its meaning
Camille thinks most who read print journals are used to a linear
 style and would be confused by the MOO's circular nature
Amber_Guest says, "I think that the very fact that I am
 responding to something that occurred perhaps a dozen lines
 above in the transcript indicates that a "pure" MOO transcript
 would be very maddening to read."
beckster Nods to eric re: added context
Mick applauds Jade
Eric says, "same for putting it on the web, which we plan to do.
 still froze. still needs help."
mday says, "Amber you might want to look at http://english.ttu.ed
cath says, "even rereading a MOO transcript you were present at
 is harder than when it was happening"
MikeS [to Jade_Guest]: why should the two be separate?  on-line,
 we rfer to print publications all the time -- it's about time
 digital was recognized
douglas says, "one way to help Albert's economy of knowledge
 production along is to have all of us (and everyone we can get
 to agree to it) sign a pact stating that we will all ONLY
 publish online (of course, then we lose non-wired audiences and
 that would be bad. so forget I suggested this.)"
PaulaP says, "beckster What I ended up doing was editing out all
 the things like people leaving and joining.... but the content
 of the conversation"
PeteS says, "when i cited an url in my diss. i was told it was
booboo says, "Ugh!  You're kidding!  That's awful."
PaulaP says, "i was following was in the transcript which was
 attached as an appendix"
Eric says, "I like albert's comment: value comes from need. when
 the knowledge produced and stored online-only becomes worth
 coming after, those in power will come after it and reward will
Jade_Guest says, "yes, mikes, but why try to put something in a
 form not natural for it (moo transcripts) into a foreign place?"
Straight from the middle of the Pacific Ocean, here's Judi.
JanetC finds MOO transcripts MUCh easier to read than most
 critical theory thankyouverymuch
beckster [to PaulaP]: we were trying to chunk comments, and it
 drove us nuts
Eric grins at pete & his cute cite
beckster nods to eric and albert
Claudine grins at janetc
booboo nods to beckster, eric, and albert
Mick tried chunking K's first intermoo and ending up screaming
 at the computer screen. MikeS was there to see it.
MikeS [to Jade_Guest]: ahh, i see ... but isn't print classic
 forced on digital pub. as "THE standard"?
traci says, "define chunking?"
Camille thinks chunking is destructive
beckster giggles at mick....woulda liked to have seen it
Eric wonders: so, is *this* valuable in terms of a broader
 audience than us? does it need to be?
MikeS laffed and laffed
douglas [to Jade_Guest]: re mikes--why put print articles online
 (albeit chopped up) and call it hypertext? or interactive text?
 That sword is double-edged.
beckster [to traci]: for us it was grouping like ideas/comments/t
Jade_Guest says, "yes, but can't we think of another way?  why
 is that the only option??"
PeteS says, "mike, weren't you just saying print *is* the
 standard, based on thousands of years of experience?"
Mick says, "[traci] collecting relevant comments into more
 manageable lexia or units ... collapsing one person's five
 comments into one ... removing extraneous detail ... stuff like
Jade_Guest says, "i agree, douglas"
booboo says, "I don't think *this* needs to be valuable to any
 outside of us, but I do think it *can* be valuable."
beckster [to Eric]: not necessarily.  This forum might be like
 small group discussion vs. large group....one feeds into the
 other, and neither is more important
MikeS says, "uh-huh ... is there an apparent contradiction?  (i
 contain multitudes ...)"
Mick is perplexed by booboo's comment
JanetC wonders what would happen if each one of us took this log
 and did SOMETHING with it....then compared notes....
cath ponders janet's idea
PeteS thinks mike should can the whitman and sell it.
booboo says, "Interesting idea, Janet"
Claudine says, "wait a sec--as teachers, do any of you who teach
 in the moo accept transcripts as finished work?  I mean, isn't
 this a starting place?"
Eric nods booboo and beck, notes that some print journals are
 really just forums for narrow academic interests, too. small
Jade_Guest says, "if we're trying to "market" what we do to
 benefit us, cramming it down their throats in a manner hard to
 handle isn't the answer.  packaging is important"
Mick is scared by Janet's idea.  He would be known worldwide as
 the Grumpy Old Traditionalist who favored pee-reivew
PaulaP  would be the first to admit that she doesn't have the
 time  between working at IBM and working on her thesis 
PeteS nods claudine.
JanetC nods vigorously in agreement with Claudine [Bonni of the
 Spamketeers]'s ideas.
Eric would pay good money for some of mike's canned whitman!
Claudine says, "don't you expect revision *after* the ideas are
 generated here?"
beckster [to Claudine]: I used to *require* collaborative final
 exams on Interchange....similar to MOO disucssions
beckster giggles at mick...you're branded!
Eric [to Mick]: it's a done deal. we're going to refer to you as
 that from now on :)
JanetC says to Claudine [Bonni of the Spamketeers], ""Ans so I
 think we would all do some different stuff..."
PeteS is starting to worry about eric ... first my cute cite and
 now mike's canned whitman....
Mick  <-- grumpy old academic traditonalist (g.o.a.t.)
booboo [to Claudine]: not necessarily.  I mean, I don't want to
 limit the function of these discussions to brainstorming alone.
Claudine wants to hear more from beckster
mday rolls the log of this session up in a crepe and eats it.
douglas [to Claudine]: so if we view the moo as process, we
 should nevertheless not lose sight of the creation of a
PaulaP says, "CLaudine: BarryM accepts mooo transcripts as part
 of papers "
beckster lol at mick
MikeS thinks there's a difference between on-line, hypertext
 writing and MOO writing.  MOO is more akin to conference
 discussions.  i don't know .... i don't know how much credit
 can be given to MOO scripts.  for instance, all the hours i've
 spent on tuesday cafe ... how could i count *that*?  
Mick nods vigorously at douglas
JanetC challenges ya all to find out the value of MOO
mday says, "Well you can count it as membership in a community,
 and productive discussion."
Mick puts it in the "Professional Organizations" section of his
 vitae, MikeS
beckster [to MikeS]: but haven't those hourse resulted in many,
 many other types o' projects?
Eric [to Claudine]: I don't like the idea of revision as
 refinement. I'd rather we thought in terms of continuing,
 expanding, dissipating from here rather than turning around and
 fiddling with this particular bunch of words. better, I think,
 to keep after the ideas and let the words trail after us like a
Claudine [to PaulaP]: Yes, as *part*--but the product notion is
 what i guess i'm after here
booboo says, "I count it as active engagement with the issues
 and movement of my field!"

Eric shows slide #7.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                Do not seek to follow
                in the footsteps of the
                men of old; seek what they


                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

traci says, "doesn't " MOO is more akin to conference
 discussions." <-- that depend upon the moo discussion?"
beckster nods to booboo and mday
PaulaP says, "Cath hmmmm I wonder if we could get Barry to
 accept that as part of our work?"
Mick did not do THAT slide!
booboo says, "Yeah basho!"
Eric chuckles
douglas [to MikeS]: I put "particpant in the Netoric Project on
 my vita. I think it should count, ergo, for me it does.
beckster says, "I think we have to be careful NOT to claim it as
 more valuable than it is"
Eric cheers douglas
Mick says, "Douglas, c'mon. The people hiring or promoting you
 will decide if it counts. Not you."
MikeS says, "oh yeah, tuesday has been an ever-increasing source
 of inspiration.  and i know i'll have a special regard for
 everyone i've worked with at tuesday ... but are we doing the
 wrong thing by trying to get it recognized?  i mean, won't such
 acceptance just KILL the interaction?"
MikeS [Kairic] nods at traci.
Mick eyes Eric warily. This is where he and I part ways, bitterly
booboo says, "But, Beck, our time is very valuable as are our
 ideas and our sharing and our collaborations.  That's pretty
Eric says, "what basho says: that's kind of what I'm trying to
 get at by drawing the comparison between conversation and
beckster says, "but we have to inform those on the P/T
 committees what these types of things are equivelant too"
cath [to PaulaP]: I've been thinking of including a moo
 discussion fragment or 2 in my thesis - I'm sure he would
 acceopt, just not sure if the various deans would ;-)
douglas [to Mick]: I have to decide that it's important first,
 or it wouldn't appear on my vita. And it's not the *only* thing
 on there--I just treat it as important.
Camille says, "Isn't the MOO conversation as valuable as the
 wine parties in Dene's room at CWC?"
mday says, "some of what we learn here finds its way into other
 projects.  For me a lot does."
booboo says, "No, we have to convince committees of the worth of
 whatever these things are, not establish equivalencies.  We do,
 however, you're right, have to speak their language somewhat."
Mick follows doug's logic. but *where* on your vita?
PaulaP says, "cath: yeah... I know he's working on Dean Hansen
 to get them to accept hypertext theses"
Eric says, "in other words, we *must* break free of the shackles
 of print *convention* but we don't need to (and probably
 wouldn't want to) leave behind the broad social function of
 scholarly interaction. "
beckster [to booboo]: so are conversations at conferences, but
 no one claims those.  I'm not saying this is equal exactly,
 just that we shouldn't overstate it
Mick adds "Grigarian Wine-Tasting, Logan UT 1996" to his vita
mday says, "well, could be more valuable as it's all written
 down.  You can word process it and even run a search for key
MikeS says, "but mick, a depatment isn't going to hire one of us
 *because* we're cafe folk.  but if it's there ... i don't know
 what it woyuld do -- eric? douglas?"
booboo [to Mick]: I put it in under scholarly activity.
Mick hopes everyone knows he is in his usual role as devil's
Claudine checks eric's wrists for shackle-burns, finds none,
 moves on
beckster says, "I think it shows we're active, productive
 members of our field...IF it's included w/ other types of
mday advocates devilishness
booboo says, "right."
JanetC grins at Claudine [Bonni of the Spamketeers].
beckster [to Mick]: you protest too much, me thinks...
Camille shows her horns
mday says, "Yes, good to have this as part of a wied range of
 activities, Beck."
PeteS suspects mick doesn't have a paper copy of his vita
Eric grins at claudine
Mick  {as Grumpy Old Traditionalist] Bah! I don't put "Had good
 conversation in Milwaukee with people over beer" on my vitae!
traci [to MikeS]: some depts would hire you because of internet
 activities such as the cafe
JanetC says to beckster [Aglow], "I don't know about overvaluing
 MOO...I think the value will vary for everyone here."
PeteS says, "shoulda had more beer."
mday can't update them vitae fast enough.
douglas [to Mick]: where on my vita? I don't remember. But you
 can look it up at http://localsonly.wilmington.net/~eymand/vita.
 htm (and I put that on every print copy of my vita as well.
Mick ooohs PeteS ... good call!!!
Mick blushes
booboo [to Mick,]: true, but you don't converse at a convention
 every week either.
MikeS still sees folks who use WP5.1 putting down "CAI pedagogy"
 on vitaes -- i think that mis-representation is something we
 should think about asa well
JanetC says to beckster [Aglow], "And my thesis committee ok-ed
 my web page and DaMOO as part of my thesis."
beckster says, "right, and you can actually give a url for the
 MOO conversations for your vita"
mday says, "well. these MOO sessions are archived too.  there's
 proof that it happened, who was there, and what was said."
Eric says, "there are differences, mick. these conversations are
 regular/professionally oriented/ and RECORDED! "
Claudine groans at that, MikeS
PeteS says, "mike aren't you confusing a particular software
 tool w/the pedagogy itself?"
Mick hmmms Eric.
mday has MOO URLs linked
Amber_Guest says, "Well, folks, I gott a go tend to a colicky
 baby - but I enjoyed the discussion, and I applaud you for
 judiciously not misapplying Thomas Kuhn (I assume that was the
 Kuhn whose legacy you referred to!)"
beckster [to MikeS]: that's a dif. cafe...:-)
JanetC says to beckster [Aglow], "If I hadn't valued my work
 there...and insisted, I wouildn't  have been able to make it
beckster feels for amber
Eric [to mday]: and that makes a HUGE difference in terms of
 scholarly value
PaulaP says, "JanetC Congrats.... The UALR OWL is my thesis well
 part of it "
Mick says, "So it's recorded. and people can go look. i'm not
 sure that's an issue. i mean, i think it should be -- but agian
 the PTR folk don't *go* look."
Amber_Guest has disconnected.
The housekeeper arrives to remove Amber_Guest.
Claudine says, "isn't there one more disadvantage to referring
 folks to these archives, mday?  isn't this an "in" crowd with
 "inside lines" e.g. Tari..."
beckster [to Mick]: they don't?  I'll be SOME do
MikeS says, "i think we're stuck in the hybrid moment -- we have
 to publish in print and on-line to get anything respected"
beckster nods to mikes
Mick can't write linearly very well any more after two years of
 hypertext only.
Eric says, "that was an early impetus for rhetnet: to capture
 network conversations that otherwise are scattered around in
 archives here & there: their value eroded not by lack of
 quality but by inaccessibility. thus, rhetnet's *archival
booboo says, "But publishing in print will potentially bring
 more and more scholars online as well."
MikeS [Kairic] nods at booboo.
cath [Doreen of the Spamketeers] . o O ( our fate is to straddle
 the paradigm shift\ )
beckster doesn't believe mick
douglas [to Mick]: but maybe if we edit this and publish in CCC
 or RR, then the PTR people may be shown its professional value
 and perhaps a few will start going (if you virtually build it
 -- and physically bill it-- they will come)
beckster nods to booboo
MikeS wants to plug his new spot at C&C again ... hybridity
PaulaP is getting better at writing linearly again.... IBM
 doesn't like on-line help that doesn't make Linear sense 
Jade_Guest says, "doesn't this urge to archive everything tend
 to go against the spirit of hypertext?"
Mick favors archiving, sure. That was the impetus for Kairos a
 year ago.  But htat brings us back to peer-review ... the K
 stuff is peer reivewed and archived. This stuff isn't
 peer-reviewed ... and it's archived. a weird juxtaposing.
beckster says, "yes.....I agree, douglas.  We need to spout
 about/quote from these things in trad. print, too"
PeteS says, "i think books like the cyberreader will do more to
 bring people online than a straight transcript."
JanetC nods to beckster [Aglow] and says, "No doubt..."
Mick nods douglas. That's *exactly* what NickC said on list two
 days ago.
booboo says, "Then we need to collaborate on more cyberreaders."
Eric [to Jade_Guest]: I don't think so. hypertext doesn't mean
 never looking back. but I think there is a strong inclination
 not to dwell on what's back there
PeteS agrees vigorously with booboo
Mick says, "[to Eric} hypertext means never having to say you're
douglas [to MikeS]: so how does that editorship work? Can I send
 you email and see it in print? Do you pull stuff from lists?
 (portions of MOO transcripts???)
Eric says, "this stuff isn't peer reviewed???????????????????????
Eric says, "back to our original question"
JanetC finds it as hard to go back to "trad" writing.
                          |                      |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: | what IS peer review? |
JanetC laughs at Mick.
JanetC peers at Eric's review.
mday as your peer, reviews it for you
Guest has disconnected.
The housekeeper arrives to remove Guest.
Mick didn't do well in 7th grade peer review, nah.
MikeS [to douglas]: for the first few issues, i'm going to look
 at what has already been done, spontaeously.  then i want to
 visit out-of-the-way lists ... i think of it as a "best of"
 which requires me to troll and find the best...
Eric says, "I think everybody here is reviewing just as fast as
 they can, and since we're all peers...."
booboo says, "I'd like to define peer review or see it evolve
 into ongoing expansions of ideas (just like print) in different
mday says, "Claudine, will it always be an in-crowd?"
traci says, "this stuff IS peer reviewed, probably in a way
 closer to the meaning of peer review than blind reviews.  there
 is a giving and taking, feedback on ideas, requests for
 clarification and support.  this thing does a better job at
 peer review than many peer review seem to"
beckster [to Eric]: but we're not making evaluative comments
 that will result in textual changes
mday says, "Sorry, I keep running off to tend to the hot/sour
Claudine shrugs to mday--I wonder?  It's growing, but...
Eric says, "yeah, booboo: ongoing expansion of ideas. "
cath agrees w/traci
Eric cheers traci
Mick disagrees w/traci
mday says, "neat traci!  In a way, we're reviewing each other as
 we go!"
Eric [to mday]: yeah!
MikeS [to traci]: i agree -- but there's no easy formula. 
 that's what's problematic for TPR committees, no?
douglas says, "as we are all technorhetoricians, we could
 workshop the transcript into a written and peer-revied essay
 (simultaneously accomplished) thus collapsing 2 steps into one)"
PaulaP says, "I think the next question is is a blind review
 truly blind????? "
mday advocates Mick's devilishness
booboo says, "Peer review will always involve evaluation...ought
 to, also.  But it's how that evaluation is given/taken/shared/
 etc. that might change. "
Mick says, "I'm talking about peer review in the manner which
 the Old Trads will understand the term."
JanetC asks beckster [Aglow], "But we are tlaking out ideas, no?"
Eric says, "this is different that print in terms of
 conventions, not function"
JanetC . o O ( talking )
booboo nods ERic
mday says, "And I'm talking about reinventing notions of peer
 review and collaborative scholarship"
traci says, "we do evaluate.  we don't respond to comments which
 aren't 'valued'; we respond at length to those that we do value"
Mick wonders if douglas has ever collaborated on one text with
 15 technorhets before ... :<)
booboo says, "Some ideas on MOO and off aren't worth
 pursuing/expanding "
booboo says, "And the review process will take care of those."
traci says, "and it seems to me a nod is an agreeable evaluation"
mday says, "I'm talking about having a transcript that
 demonstrates the way, or at least one way, ideas are built"
JanetC nods Traci
Eric says, "the text doesn't sit still, so we can't rip into
 style and grammar and organization. we keep ideas in play.
 everything gets challenged or consented to. everything is
 negotiated. that's what peer review ought to be. a group
 working together to negotiate toward qualiity"
traci says, "i am not saying this is the same as traditional
 peer review"
MikeS [to Eric]: but it may be a long time before mainstream
 academia ets over its paper fetish
Mick says, "traci, you know i agree with that. but grumpy old
 traditionalist laffs in your face. if we start caliming *this*
 is peer-reviewed, we DEVALUE the term overall as we apply it
 other places."
douglas [to Mick]: well, no, but there's no time like the
 present to start trying.
MikeS [to Mick]: he will
Eric [to Mick]: maybe we gotta re-teach them what peer review is
 really about
traci says, "what i am saying is that there is an evaluation and
 feedback going on"
mday says, "it grows and changes, we discard what doesn't work. 
 Or nobody responds to it."
Camille says, "Of course this peer review is not blind"
beckster says, "again, though, the point of THIS kind of peer
 dialogue/review is NOT to alter existing text"
cath [to Mick]: maybe not devalue, maybe revalue
JanetC lifts her right brow at Mick and say, "OR perhaps we are
 redefining it in ways you grumps are uncomfortable with"
mday puts on a blindfold for Camille
Eric says, "i hate to see us bow to the print conventions that
 have been misshapen by long habit"
mday says, "Yes, I like that Cath.  Revalue"
mday says, "or redefining, as JanetC says"
booboo says, "That's why I think we need to seriously consider
 what we want peer review to be/look like."
Eric [to Mick]: thing is, it's not even a matter of medium.
 *this* is what peer review could and should look like in print,
Mick reviews the blindfolded mday and edits him harshly
mday gropes about for the keyboard &575&%*&%&%*&%c58757537
Camille takes off mday's blindfold and thinks open reviews are
JanetC nods vigorously in agreement with Eric [GPC]'s ideas.
booboo says, "If our deans decide to grant me (in their
 inimitable wisdom) the editorship of their new to be online
 press, I want to establish the best system of review I can."
beckster [to Eric]: but I wonder about the logistics/viability
 of this type of peer reveiw in print.  Yes, it might result in
 better end product, but it would simply take too long
douglas [to Eric]: I agree--but this medium is allowing us to
 experiment with what peer review *could* be in ways that we
 couldn't get away with in print (plus we get to make pee jokes)
MikeS [to Eric]: but i want to be able to read something, gt it
 over with, move on, and read something else.  transcripts such
 as this are *not* kind to readers.  what about just wanting to
 read a bit and move on?  is that readerly text eliminated?
Mick says, "I think we gotta choose our battles REAL carefully.
 Re-defining-re-valuaing a term like "peer reivew" is unwinnable
 if we're worried about seeing something "count""
mday says, "Maybe we needn't call it peer-review, however."
JanetC says to Mick, "We all pick our emphasis..."
Eric notes that in the item from EduPage, the science scholars
 dismissed electronic threats to peer review, but allowed as how
 'open peer commentary' was ok withthem
booboo suspects Mick is right and sighs . . . .
Eric says, "so, mick, they may be closer to coming around that
 you might think :)"
Mick feels a kludge in the room somewheres
JanetC grins at Mick.
Mick says, "Peer e-view?"
MikeS steps over the kludge
Mick ughs hisself
PeteS says, "hey!"
JanetC groans at Mick.
booboo says, "I really like the pee-review"
douglas [to beckster]: the peer review process can be held
 electronically! wouldn't take long--and email is becoming a
 more acceptable method of sending text between individuals...
JanetC nods to booboo and says, "Yeppers..."
mday says, "Why does it have to be "review"?"
MikeS says, "peer view?"
Mick ooohs! Peer E-value-ation!
booboo says, "Ooh"
PaulaP wishes Mark Gellis was here.... then he could at least
 talk about how peer review shaped his paper
beckster [to douglas]: only if everyone involved were equally
 savvy and had equal equipment, etc.
JanetC hasta go see some horses bout a dinner review. Night all.
 It's been swell.

Eric shows slide #8.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Tari Fanderclai:

     I find it kind of amusing that we're talking about print
     snobbery and elitism among the traditionalists. Don't we do 
     a lot of the same thing--suggesting that what they're doing is 
     outmoded and inferior and everyone should get online and learn 
     the skills we already developed? Heck, a lot of electronic 
     publications have more gadgetry than content, and a lot of them 
     are all but inaccessible with the equipment found on the desks of 
     so many academics, particularly in the humanities.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

booboo waves to JanetC
MikeS [Kairic] waves at JanetC.
JanetC says, "Viva la paradigm"
douglas [to Eric]: based on what I've seen in print, I suspect
 that the science scholars dismiss electronic peer review
 (especially open peer review) because it would ultimately
 devolve into flame wars!
JanetC goes home.
mday is Mark's colleague.  Doubts Mark could ever make it at
 this hour
booboo says, "I don't put them down...how many of "us" do?"
PeteS says, ""
Mick thinks Tari is talking about a publication he is familiar
 with ...
                          |                                             |
                          | tari, btw, sent her regrets. she wanted to  |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: |  be here. but not bad enough to miss a trip |
                          |            to an island off maine           |

Mick says, "Maybe she can do a peer review of the transcript."
PaulaP says, "mday cool... I first met mark on IRC.... He seems
 pretty cool though I have yet to meet him RL "
douglas wonders if Tari would do a pee-review....
beckster rolls her eyes
cath laughs out loud.
Mick says, "Really, though, she makes an incredibly important
 point ..."
Camille says, "My students using InterCahnge feel less inhibited
 in their comments about their peer's writing, wouldn't that
 happen with online journal reviews as well?  Flamming?  Red-pen
Mick says, "E-journals are often critiqued for valuing style
 over substance. THAT is a battle worth fighting."
Eric [to douglas]: I wonder, though, to what extent the tendency
 toward viciousness is a product of the current system? I
 suspect it is, myself
booboo has got to go back to another kind of work...print-based
 writing.  Thanks for the good ideas, all.
booboo waves
PeteS says, "but look at something like PMC ... that's pretty
beckster [to Camille]: or responsibility
traci [to Camille]: i think it has a lot to do with the readers,
 the writers, and the atmospher
Eric [to Camille]: maybe. if the review was of a discreet text
 that had value in terms of reputations and credentials. yes.
MikeS thanks you all for this discussion -- it is directly
 relevent to the work i'm starting for computers and
 composition.  i'll keep everyone updated, but right now, i've
 got to go get some dinner
MikeS [Kairic] waves.
traci says, "when paula talks to writers in the UALR OWL, she is
 doing a kind of review, but not like those students"
MikeS goes home.
douglas waves to MikeS
Eric [to Camille]: but what if review remains focused on ideas
 rather than texts, on continuing conversations and extending
 knowledge *together* rather than competing for 'scarce'
 recognition resources
PaulaP nods.."traci is right.... how we would edit something
 would be a different 
booboo has disconnected.
Eric says, "I think that would take the starch out of the
 vicious inclinations"
traci says, "and I think if we were to have eric, becky, and
 mick peer review anonymous_guest's paper, I don['t think there
 would be a flamewar of red ink"
Mick says, "Eric are you separating ideas and texts? how?"
Mick flames becky's and eric's reviews
PaulaP says, "than how other's would edit."
Camille says, "Yes, Eric, moving to collaboration"
beckster nods to traci
traci says, "now if the goat were to peer review anonymous
 guest, things would be diff"
Scott materializes out of thin air.
Mick says, "the goat wouldn't know how to review a text like
 this, trac."
traci says, "or if the technology got in the way of the
 feedback, there could be waht might seem like stabbing ink"
beckster giggles at traci
Eric [to Mick]: yes. 'emphasis' is my knife. if the purpose of a
 text is to further a conversation, to keep an idea in play,
 that's different than if the text itself is the focus of
PaulaP says, "traci the owl is not up an running yet.... but How
 i have edited papers as a "
beckster nodsnodsnods to teric
beckster says, "er, Eric"
Mick will have to think hard about that Eric.
douglas [to Camille]: it depends on how well we keep in mind the
 idea that we are engaged in a profession and thus should be
 "professional" and contribute constructively to that "ongoing
 conversation" rather then hijacking the dialogue with flames
 (carnival, however, is not the same as flames, so I think the
 banter we engage in, when not destructive, is acceptable --and
 Bakhtin would love it.)
Eric says, "in print, too much weight lands on the text. space
 is so precious in terms of money and recognition that every
 text has to be as perfect as possible. "
PaulaP says, "cybertutor is definitely different than how I edit
 the papers I read for "
mday votes for keeping ideas in play, not letting them stagnate.
  Print allows stagnation
Mick oohs beck's hybrid Tari-Eric ... teric!
traci [to PaulaP]: the owls on collegetown and daedalus, as far
 as i know, still exist and lots of students have been run thru
cath [to PaulaP]: in what way?
Eric says, "in print, the text takes over the ideas. just like
 in the classroom, where grades take over for learning"
Eric says, "the comparison is no accident!"
PaulaP says, "traci: I'm setting upa web owl for UALR "

Eric shows slide #9.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Nick Carbone:

     As we work in both print and pixels, if we cite the pixels
     in the print, then attention will be paid. When someof us are
     up for tenure, if that still exists down the line, and we
     point to how often our e-journal work has been cited, that'll
     build validity.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

beckster [to Eric]: you're denying any "poem" then, at least in
 the rosenblattian sense
Mick says, "eric, help me -- Text:Grades as Ideas:???"
Scott sighs.
Eric says, "I'm not familiar with the rosenblattian sense, but
 poems can exist in dynamic convesational environments. see
beckster thinks they can exist in the connection between a
 reader and a text, too
PaulaP says, "cath: well for one thing I find I am much more
 careful about how I word"
PaulaP says, "my comments because on the OWL they can't see me
 and I don't want anything "
traci says, "has anyone considered a citation index for online
 work? i know those exist for print journals and such...why not
 for online work? i mean you choose the sources when you have a
 citation index (you don't try to archive the world)."
Eric says, "not text:grades exactly. publish-or-perish:grades as
cath has connected.
cath disappears suddenly for parts unknown.
cath materializes out of thin air.
beckster nods to Paulap and they require you to be more specific
 and text-referential
The housekeeper arrives to cart booboo off to bed.
Eric [to traci]: good idea! that's something ACW might ought to
PaulaP says, "I also don't get a chance to conference F2F"
douglas [to traci]: I think Nancy Kaplan and Stuart M. are
 finishing one now.
Mick hmms eric's analogy which equates publich-or-perish with
 ideas. I thot one was positive and one was antiquted
traci [to douglas]: what are they reviewing cits of?
Eric says, "I think I got that backwards mick"
Mick eyes The Daedalean Citation Index created and maintained by
 Saint Traci Gardner
Eric says, "should be: pub-or-die:ideas as grades:learning"
PaulaP says, "beckster not only that but because I have to turn
 a log into BarryM and Fur I'm doubly careful because I know it
 can be my head "
douglas [to traci]: I didn't get the specs--she just said (at
 CCCC) that this citation engine would be (I gather) like a bot
 that looks for citations of your work anywhere on the web.
traci [to Mick]: hardly.
Mick thanks Eric. Was confused!  I love the pub-or-die line
PaulaP says, "with the Personal Expository class I was within a
 group of my peers.... "
beckster grins at PaulaP....double audience!
Eric [to douglas]: alta vista practically does that now. sort of.
Mick thinks we lost Tari's point earlier about e-journals
 apparently valuing style over substance.  Anyone have any
 thoughta bout this?
PaulaP high fives Beckster exactly 
PeteS says, "well ... mick, i said before ... look at something
 like PMC, where it is all substance, no style. just like in
douglas [to Eric]: yeah but they're specifically working on a
 citation index for computer-assisted comp. (which I think they
 want to be official).
Claudine nods petes
beckster [to Mick]: uh, I do.  I'm afraid online journals are
 sometimes too tough to read because of the "I'm linking because
 I can" mentality
Mick says, "I missed that earlier, Pete, Sorry.  But PMC woud be
 the exception, don't you tink?"
Camille says, "delivery is an important part of all
 rhetoric--electronic or print"
Eric wonders if that isn't conflating expansive rhetoric with
 style (not that they're unrelated): expansive substance
Mick likes that Eric.  say more!
PeteS says, "not necessarily .. look at Tikkun online ... or
 Critical Inquiry ... or c and c "
beckster nods to camille....and delivery must take into
 consideration audience, medium, purpose, etc.
douglas agrees with beckster, but that is where interactive peer
 review could help!
Claudine [to beckster]: and ability to link?
beckster says, "but I don't think all online journals do that"
PeteS says, "they're hybrids ... trying to maintain their print
 identity while acknowledging that they can't."
Mick notes that the two journal editors here {Pat and Vanna}
 both represent publications that have been resoudnigly accused
 of valuing style far too much.
beckster [to Claudine]: 's the medium part...:-)
Claudine nods to beckster
PeteS thinks that may say more about the editors than the medium
mday says, "Style far too much?  How so?"
Mick hugs PeteS warmly
Camille says, "Maybe it is not valuing style too mcuh but just
 presenting a new style"
PeteS hi5s Mick "a stylin' guy if i ever saw one."
Mick says, "go, camille! go, camille! "
Eric [to Mick]: in print, ideas are compressed. the treatment
 seeks depth over superficiality. pack as much into those pages
 as possible. on the net, people negotiate, meander, follow
 tangents, return, refigure, talk about movies & pets, then get
 back to the point. lots of words. copious words. the substance
 remains, but is dissipated.
Mick cheers for Camille.
Claudine [to Camille]: i think the criticism was that they wanna
 "privilege" style somehow, right?
douglas [to PeteS]: but e-journals don't have to be hypertextual
 (particularly if they don't claim to be) some can just use the
 net as a distribution mechanism, while somewill push the
 envelop of what can (or should) be done in an e-journal.
beckster says, "I think peer reviewers can help de-toxify an
 overly hyper text, but we have to remember that dif. audiences
 w/ dif. experiences will be reading it.....which really
 complicates things"
mday says, "dissipated, or massaged?"
PeteS says, "[to doug] that's my point. the more substantive
 ejournals are pretty much avoiding a lot of hypertext"
Mick .oO("an overly hyper text"?)
Eric [to PeteS]: substantive?
PeteS regrets his choice of words
mday says, "Do we have to say that it's diluted?"
Eric grins
Mick says, "[to PeteS} substantive?"
Camille says, "And what Eric said is the expected style of a
 print journal whereas the electroinc journal is to have a style
 which appeals to a different audience (I'm not going to attempt
 to define)"
PaulaP says, "doesn't it come down to having an understanding
 that sometimes things can't be the orginal idea of hypertext --
 several small pieces linked together as one big piece?"
Eric says, "not diluted. dissipative."
douglas [to PeteS]: but I see _Kairos_ as a substantive
 journal--and they ain't avoiding hypertext!
PeteS decides he likes his choice of words
Eric might be using the terms wrong but HE knows what he means :)
Mick pays Douglas
mday says, "Meaning, like evanescent?"
Claudine agrees with douglas
douglas says I mean WE ain't avoiding hypertext! 
Eric reaches for his (print) dictionary
PeteS says, "[to doug] granted ... but many of the more ...
 shall we say less style-conscious journals *do* avoid
 hypertext. Sheesh. i'm just agreeing w/you."
mday thinks it's mutating, growing, changing...
Mick wrote his thesis about that kind of audience camille --
 using lunsofrd/ede's aduinece addressed/invoked, i talked about
 "audience accessed
douglas pocket's Mick's cash
beckster [to PeteS]: you mean the journals that are imitating
mday says, "exploring, examining, agglomerating as it sloughs
Camille says, "I guess I should read Mick's thesis!"
PeteS says, "[to beckster] most of those are print journals that
 have established a web presence, rather than native to the web,
 like kairos."
Eric says, "american heritage has evanescent as vaporous,
 disappearing, fleeting. so I guess I'd lean away from that term"
cath [to Mick]: is it online?
PeteS says, "which goes to my earlier point ... not better, but
douglas [to Mick]: is your thesis available on-line (whether
 hypertext or no)?
beckster nods to petes....so the term e-journal is used loosely
 there, eh?
Camille says, "Mick, does it value style?"
Eric agrees with petes
Mick says, "[cath] not yet. tto lazy to put it up there. also
 embarrassed to put 130 pages of linear text onthe www"
Mick nods to camille.
beckster grins at mick

Eric shows slide #10.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Michael J. Salvo:

     *my* personal feelings are that through publishing _kairos_ 
     as best we can, looking at and maybe even influencing 
     (positively, or negatively -- ie, 'we're not going to do 
     *that*') other on-line publications, and then joining
     debates such as this, we will begin to develop some mores and
     traditions for on-line publication. and a big part of that 
     process is making mistakes, recognizing them as such, and then
     adjusting the process accordingly. it's a long, tiring, labor-
     intensive process -- and the end can't even be fathomed let alone
     seen. there may be no light at the end of this tunnel -- a
     publication of becoming (?).

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mick grins that Mikey is gone
douglas [to Mick]: don't be embarassed--I did it and it's the
 only way it will ever get read (instead of sitting on a shelf
 in the dept. library)
Mick says, "I think Mike's comment is brilliant, btw. I can say
 that because he's not here to hear it.  A publication of
 becoming -- that's what RhetNet is and that's what "kairos"
 *means* ... but "becoming" don't help us a lot in the immediate
 PTR meetings"

                          |                                               |
                          |   Just to remind everyone: This session is    |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: |  publishable and will be published in RhetNet |

beckster just got kicked BIG TIME
PeteS waves to claudine
Claudine hugs beckster and dilbert
                          |                                              |
                          |   If anyone is interested in attempting to   |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: |  shape it for print or for other net venues, |
                          |                   we can...                  |

douglas [to Eric]: I'd like to play with it--where will the log
 be available?
                          |                                               |
                          | http://www.missouri.edu/rhetnet/pr_27june96. |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: |                      txt                      |

                          |                                             |
                          | Me & Mick would like to thank you all very  |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: |  much for coming along tonight totalk about |
                          |                 this stuff!                 |


How would you cook it?

What thread or theme stands out?

What comments made your eyes go wide (in admiration or horror or a mixture of both)?

If you've read the peer review thread on Rhetnt-L, are there links you would build between it and this text?

From here (anchor word or phrase):

To there (file, by author/subject or URL):

To there (destination word or phrase):

From there (file, by author/subject or URL):

From there (anchor word or phrase):

To here: (destination word or phrase):


RhetNet home | Net/Texts | Peer Review

hits since 27 June 1996