The Problem(s) with success (KEVIN AUSTIN )

Subject: The Problem(s) with success
Date:    Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:07:25 -0400

On Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:20:30 -0400 Al Bregman <BREGMAN(at)HEBB.PSYCH.MCGILL.CA> wrote in part on .. Subject: Audio Demos >Some of the reviewers thought the idea was very interesting but were >troubled by the absence of peer review in this approach. This happens not only in the scientific / research communities, but in the arts and creative ones as well. When the situation was that resources were limited and they needed to 'distributed' to the 'most worthy', peer revue may have been of importance. (may?). But, sadly, I'm not sure why such a prestigeous and noted researcher as Dr Bregman (having written a central text on ASA) should be, and how his ideas 'could be' reviewed. > ... tap the collective wisdom of the AUDITORY list members by asking all >of you for suggestions about how some sort of review process could be >built into this project. If the proposal was to receive funding, then there will / would need to be assessment, however, Dr Bregman continues ... >The main problem, in my mind, concerns the function of Editor. Who would >play editor? IMV, most likely someone who is more knowledgeable in the field than Dr Bregman. > Why would he or she want to do it? Once again, from an academic persepctive, possibly for tenure, promotion, merit consideration. > In a normal review process >the editor selects the reviewers and mediates between them and the authors. Maybe the question could be, given the web and the free distribution of ideas, why would one need to go through the archaic process of 'selecting the best ideas'? (Was the Theory of Relativity peer reviewed? What was the assessment of the editor and reviewers?) From the arts community, a brief review of the [[portion lost - dpwe]] about 130 years of the presitgious "Prix de Rome" finds about 4 reasonably ell known names, and the omission of many of the more significant French composers of the 20th century. The competition was notably political, and always conservatively PC. >Who would want to be editor for just a single project? Who would select >such an editor? What about competition? In my experience, why not just publish directly to the web? The arts community has "indies" (independents) -- would Dr Bregman be viewed as a "rogue" researcher if he decided to bypass the 'normal' route? Would his ideas and research have less value, or perhaps less 'perceived' value? (Or are these the same thing?) From a quick (sic) reading of his book, I would [[portion lost - dpwe]] he may have, as I do to those who participate on this list (with one otable exception). > In a normal editorial role, one >chooses the most meritorious of competing manuscripts, and rejects the >others, but in the proposed case, there is no competition, so the editor can >only suggest improvements and ultimately accept or reject what has been >offered. The arts community (funded!) suffers from the same dilemma, and funding bodies face the same issue. ... And if the idea is rejected by the editor as being "less meritorious", today, does this decision effect the distribution of the idea? (work of art?). Not with web access. But maybe these ideas are just a little ahead of my times. >I would be most grateful for any suggestions and thoughts that you might >have. A group I am involved in has taken the route of (semi-) independent arts-work distribution, and the 'success' of the method has led finding groups to the conclusion that funding isn't necessary. The failures of success. Best Kevin kaustin(at) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Professor K Austin EuCuE - Department of Music / Departement de musique universite Concordia University 7141, rue Sherbrooke o Montreal, QC H4B 1R6 CANADA -------------------------------------------------------------- tel: (1) 514 - 848 - 4709 FAX: (1) 514 - 848 - 2808 Vous pouvez ecrire en francais ou en anglais.

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University