In terms of experimental and installation ethnography, this text encourages a dynamic approach to research dissemination. Thinking in these terms, then, how could our installation be constantly changing? How much of the process are we willing to reveal publicly? With their conversation on social networking systems, these authors seem to prioritize conversation with different groups of people. This could help us think of different iterations of the same project. Who’s our audience? Do we have multiple audiences? How could they be in conversation with each other? Thinking about feedback, then, who could we expand our networks to include?
“Publishing preprints, postprints, or even the peer-review process allows the tracking of the development of a final version of a scholarly article”
“Its impact is measured by counting the amount of citations to it, references which result at article level … it remains unclear as to whether the article is referenced as a citation within the introduction, a reference to similar ‘Material and Methods,’ or whether the cited article is being disputed in the discussion”
The production process is not visible to the reader … currently, final versions of scholarly publications do not contain traces of their production process.
The contribution of individual authors is not visible
Finalized versions do not allow changes, thus making corrections and additions nearly impossible
The current publication system is a consequence of a scholarly knowledge dissemination system which developed in times before the Internet when printing and disseminating printed issues of papers were the only means for distributing scientific results.
Dynamic.. Meaning no static version exists. Dynamic publications evolve.
Working version
Message boards where threads are initiated by posting open questions leads to a question-centered discussion and the discussions in turn stay on topic
Tracing the historical beginnings of academic publishing, the authors are able to clearly argue for a change in academic publishing and research dissemination. We’ve moved beyond a print era of publishing and instead of trying to force old styles of print media onto the virtual platforms, the authors argue we should use these platforms to rethink the publishing process, making it more dynamic and collaborative. Virtual platforms, in particular, can provide a more rapid feedback which has its pros and cons, and will change the way scientists collaborate with each other throughout the entire research process.
After tracing the history of Western academic publishing, the authors argue for new ways of disseminating academic research, including mediums that are dynamic and collaborative. This type of dissemination would place more focus on the process and open endedness of academic findings and publishing.