http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113858811205659673-1oPuv_I9jyv2P9k_u8...
Publishers Say Fact-Checking Is Too Costly By JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL January 30, 2006; Page B1
- d.
Now we are getting down to the truth about this. Not that we should let up.
Fred
On Feb 2, 2006, at 10:29 AM, David Gerard wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/ SB113858811205659673-1oPuv_I9jyv2P9k_u8qNN_3obQM_20070130.html? mod=rss_free
Publishers Say Fact-Checking Is Too Costly By JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL January 30, 2006; Page B1
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113858811205659673-1oPuv_I9jyv2P9k_u8...
Publishers Say Fact-Checking Is Too Costly By JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL January 30, 2006; Page B1
- d.
No problem; just use really old books ;-)
Kirill Lokshin
David Gerard wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113858811205659673-1oPuv_I9jyv2P9k_u8...
Publishers Say Fact-Checking Is Too Costly By JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL January 30, 2006; Page B1
Actually, it's sort of interesting that this is news. While it's common practice to have peer review for scholarly books, the "peer" part of the term should be a hint that it's not the publisher doing the checking! My guess is that our reverence for the printed page is such that we just assume no one would dare to print without being certain of its correctness.
Alas, now all the POV-pushers will point to this as evidence that every source they dislike must be in error.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Actually, it's sort of interesting that this is news. While it's common practice to have peer review for scholarly books, the "peer" part of the term should be a hint that it's not the publisher doing the checking! My guess is that our reverence for the printed page is such that we just assume no one would dare to print without being certain of its correctness.
In many fields the peer-review of even scholarly books is not all that high. In the sciences, journal articles hold much more weight than books, because there's a perception that anybody can get a book published.
-Mark
On 2/2/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
In many fields the peer-review of even scholarly books is not all that high. In the sciences, journal articles hold much more weight than books, because there's a perception that anybody can get a book published.
-Mark
In my experience it hasn't been so much that "anyone can get a book published" (in sciences, unlike humanities, books are required for tenure) but rather that books are an outlet for older, established people to advance their pet theories. Peer review is not only much gentler on books than on journal articles, it's also harder to find someone willing to give that sort of a level of review to a book because it's so much longer a work
Ian
On 2/2/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Actually, it's sort of interesting that this is news. While it's common practice to have peer review for scholarly books, the "peer" part of the term should be a hint that it's not the publisher doing the checking! My guess is that our reverence for the printed page is such that we just assume no one would dare to print without being certain of its correctness.
In many fields the peer-review of even scholarly books is not all that high. In the sciences, journal articles hold much more weight than books, because there's a perception that anybody can get a book published.
-Mark
Do you do much organic synthersis? All those claims of 90% yield tend to be treated slightly skepticaly.
-- geni
Stan Shebs wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113858811205659673-1oPuv_I9jyv2P9k_u8...
Publishers Say Fact-Checking Is Too Costly By JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Actually, it's sort of interesting that this is news. While it's common practice to have peer review for scholarly books, the "peer" part of the term should be a hint that it's not the publisher doing the checking! My guess is that our reverence for the printed page is such that we just assume no one would dare to print without being certain of its correctness.
Alas, now all the POV-pushers will point to this as evidence that every source they dislike must be in error.
This is probably good news for us. It helps to burst the bubble of truth that surrounds reputable publications. I would not feel it unethical to exploit such incidents and the Chandra incident for our own purposes. We encourage all readers and editors to check facts that we present, and ask them to make corrections. For many of these other publications you need to be somebody before your criticism will be heard.
Ec