Comments for Educational Insanity http://edinsanity.com “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:57:43 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Every Blog Post Ever: Communication FAIL by Shelly Blake-Plock http://edinsanity.com/2012/01/16/every-blog-post-ever-communication-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-11217 Shelly Blake-Plock Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:57:43 +0000 http://edinsanity.com/?p=629#comment-11217 Jon, Snarky comment. Followed by exclamation points. Shelly (actually, "Anonymous") Jon,

Snarky comment. Followed by exclamation points.

Shelly (actually, “Anonymous”)

]]> Comment on Every Blog Post Ever: Communication FAIL by Alan Levine http://edinsanity.com/2012/01/16/every-blog-post-ever-communication-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-11216 Alan Levine Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:52:32 +0000 http://edinsanity.com/?p=629#comment-11216 Opening comment with watery pofitice affirmation but quickly turning to talk about myself, linking to my own work. Brilliantly on, Jon! And the video classic. I'd also something in your mix of mention of my own blogging on this topic from a time period prior to the paper. Ending comment with vague reference to pop culture figure from 15 years ago. Opening comment with watery pofitice affirmation but quickly turning to talk about myself, linking to my own work.

Brilliantly on, Jon! And the video classic. I’d also something in your mix of mention of my own blogging on this topic from a time period prior to the paper.

Ending comment with vague reference to pop culture figure from 15 years ago.

]]> Comment on Every Blog Post Ever: Communication FAIL by Sara Carter http://edinsanity.com/2012/01/16/every-blog-post-ever-communication-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-11201 Sara Carter Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:52:22 +0000 http://edinsanity.com/?p=629#comment-11201 And this is...wait for it... "Every comment ever." or "Every reply ever." (Seriously, tho, great post!) And this is…wait for it…

“Every comment ever.”

or
“Every reply ever.”

(Seriously, tho, great post!)

]]> Comment on Every Blog Post Ever: Communication FAIL by Steve Ransom http://edinsanity.com/2012/01/16/every-blog-post-ever-communication-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-11200 Steve Ransom Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:15:37 +0000 http://edinsanity.com/?p=629#comment-11200 This post is totally awesome. You rock. I'll spare you any further insights so that you don't have to respond. This post is totally awesome. You rock. I’ll spare you any further insights so that you don’t have to respond.

]]> Comment on Every Blog Post Ever: Communication FAIL by Scott McLeod http://edinsanity.com/2012/01/16/every-blog-post-ever-communication-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-11198 Scott McLeod Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:13:30 +0000 http://edinsanity.com/?p=629#comment-11198 Could we come up with a similar formula for research articles and dissertations (perhaps chapter by chapter for the latter)? I think we probably could! Could we come up with a similar formula for research articles and dissertations (perhaps chapter by chapter for the latter)? I think we probably could!

]]> Comment on Every Blog Post Ever: Communication FAIL by KarenR http://edinsanity.com/2012/01/16/every-blog-post-ever-communication-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-11194 KarenR Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:24:38 +0000 http://edinsanity.com/?p=629#comment-11194 It took me awhile to comment because I had to delete a bunch of blog posts first. It took me awhile to comment because I had to delete a bunch of blog posts first.

]]> Comment on Every Blog Post Ever: Communication FAIL by Linda704 http://edinsanity.com/2012/01/16/every-blog-post-ever-communication-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-11193 Linda704 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:18:48 +0000 http://edinsanity.com/?p=629#comment-11193 Is it good or bad that I can relate to everything (wait, that's an exaggeration) in this post? Well done! Is it good or bad that I can relate to everything (wait, that’s an exaggeration) in this post? Well done!

]]> Comment on “Academic blogging” qua peer review by Cedar Riener http://edinsanity.com/2012/01/08/academic-blogging-qua-peer-review/comment-page-1/#comment-11095 Cedar Riener Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:45:51 +0000 http://edinsanity.com/?p=622#comment-11095 Agreed, and you are right that you didn't say replace. Interesting, I wasn't aware of that Shakespeare Quarterly experiment. That sounds like a good model, as well as the JIME. Anyways, thanks again for the mention, and for the food for thought. I like your pledge to only publish in open access journals, and I wish I could take it, but the price for authors seems a bit steep (at least for the PLos, I am not familiar with too many others) for someone like me at a small liberal arts college. Although as I get my next paper in the pipeline, I am going to do some more research about getting it into an open access journal. Agreed, and you are right that you didn’t say replace.
Interesting, I wasn’t aware of that Shakespeare Quarterly experiment. That sounds like a good model, as well as the JIME.
Anyways, thanks again for the mention, and for the food for thought. I like your pledge to only publish in open access journals, and I wish I could take it, but the price for authors seems a bit steep (at least for the PLos, I am not familiar with too many others) for someone like me at a small liberal arts college. Although as I get my next paper in the pipeline, I am going to do some more research about getting it into an open access journal.

]]> Comment on “Academic blogging” qua peer review by Jon Becker http://edinsanity.com/2012/01/08/academic-blogging-qua-peer-review/comment-page-1/#comment-11094 Jon Becker Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:15:50 +0000 http://edinsanity.com/?p=622#comment-11094 Hi Cedar, I don't know that I'm suggesting that we "replace" the peer-review process. I'm mostly suggesting that the only model deemed "legitimate" by the academy is old and not particularly effective. In terms of "real scientific peer review, as well as a public and open post-review," I assume you're familiar with this "experiment?" http://www.dcc.ac.uk/news/shakespeare-quarterly-open-peer-review-experiment Hi Cedar,
I don’t know that I’m suggesting that we “replace” the peer-review process. I’m mostly suggesting that the only model deemed “legitimate” by the academy is old and not particularly effective.

In terms of “real scientific peer review, as well as a public and open post-review,” I assume you’re familiar with this “experiment?” http://www.dcc.ac.uk/news/shakespeare-quarterly-open-peer-review-experiment

]]> Comment on “Academic blogging” qua peer review by Cedar Riener http://edinsanity.com/2012/01/08/academic-blogging-qua-peer-review/comment-page-1/#comment-11092 Cedar Riener Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:43:35 +0000 http://edinsanity.com/?p=622#comment-11092 Thanks for the mention and the kind words. I agree with your support of open access and more scientific conversation in the open. I just have a few caveats, which lead me to be apprehensive about an entirely open process of peer review. I considered my post more of a commentary on the NYT reporting of the study, than a review of the study itself. I consider myself far less qualified to comment on the econometric models used, than on the policy recommendations. Bruce Baker, on the other hand, is cited in the paper, and clearly an expert in the methods used and the background literature. DiCarlo's treatment of the paper is the closest to a review, but is still for a larger, more popular audience than merely other experts in value added literature. I am glad that commentary can happen so quickly in this case, but I don't think that replaces the peer review process, where people like Rothstein, Baker, and other economists get a chance to review the nuts and bolts of the methods. Sometimes I worry that people will think that this "post-review" can replace peer review. In this case, it seems to have done just that. Before any of us could comment on it, and before it is in a peer reviewed journal, the article is summarized in the New York Times. And, as Dorn and I pointed out, the reporter took the authors speculations ("fire sooner rather than later") as more informative than their actual study. Anyways, thanks for the mention, and I agree that months to a year is too long. But I don't like peer review that begins with a press conference either. Hopefully the world of scholarly communication will evolve into something that allows for real scientific peer review, as well as a public and open post-review. Thanks for the mention and the kind words. I agree with your support of open access and more scientific conversation in the open. I just have a few caveats, which lead me to be apprehensive about an entirely open process of peer review.
I considered my post more of a commentary on the NYT reporting of the study, than a review of the study itself. I consider myself far less qualified to comment on the econometric models used, than on the policy recommendations. Bruce Baker, on the other hand, is cited in the paper, and clearly an expert in the methods used and the background literature. DiCarlo’s treatment of the paper is the closest to a review, but is still for a larger, more popular audience than merely other experts in value added literature.
I am glad that commentary can happen so quickly in this case, but I don’t think that replaces the peer review process, where people like Rothstein, Baker, and other economists get a chance to review the nuts and bolts of the methods.
Sometimes I worry that people will think that this “post-review” can replace peer review. In this case, it seems to have done just that. Before any of us could comment on it, and before it is in a peer reviewed journal, the article is summarized in the New York Times. And, as Dorn and I pointed out, the reporter took the authors speculations (“fire sooner rather than later”) as more informative than their actual study.
Anyways, thanks for the mention, and I agree that months to a year is too long. But I don’t like peer review that begins with a press conference either. Hopefully the world of scholarly communication will evolve into something that allows for real scientific peer review, as well as a public and open post-review.

]]>