Blog Post 2: Kevin: The Necessity of Cred-Checks

As Hayley points out, peer review is now dependent upon the direction of online journals and articles. As I mention in my earlier post, however, the technology must include a means of reviewing the credentials of those posting, lest the well of scholarship and subsequent dissemination of information be poisoned (as in the case of Wikipedia's widely publicized scandal). Tools such as Ulrich's and MLA (in this module, afore-linked) offer a central point of reference for more carefully strained information, but as Phillips notes, all scholarly publications are directed in part by financial concerns, so problems remain; open access (also mentioned by Phillips) poses a potential solution, but the decisions regarding publication will still encounter the obstacles of authorial credibility and money.

I think citation formats are an extension of the sense of greed that naturally flows from monetizing knowledge (which like water, food, healthcare, and shelter...should be free, in this bleeding-heart's mind;). MLA decides they want a comma instead of a colon and we run out and dutifully purchase the latest greatest edition of the handbook that reflects the change. Fortunately, (free) online resources stay up-to-date on the newest hems and save us bundles on paper (which also saves the trees).

My predictions about the future: Peer review will still thrive, though via online vehicles. The invisible college will continue to be an invaluable resource for scholars, since word-of-mouth greatly ameliorates concerns with source credibility.