3 ms·

Sounds like peer review? It's difficult to find people who can provide an informed analysis of an activity unless you choose from amongst people who can do that

Sounds like peer review? It's difficult to find people who can provide an informed analysis of an activity unless you choose from amongst people who can do that activity themselves

hkt 4y ago
Exactly this. I found out the embarrassing way (by asking a journalism tutor) how to end up being a writer like Perry Anderson because I enjoyed one of his longer pieces in the LRB, reviewing the work of an illustrious writer on the history of the EU (Luk van de Midelaar). He told me if I wanted to be like that, I'd need to contribute to the New Left Review for six decades and also be a Marxist historian. The point being, becoming a peer of that kind is impossible to do through academia, so some people consider it "clubby". It is, perhaps, that these people have been both commercially successful in their niche and influential that confers that peerhood, not shared social ties (although I'm certain those form too).
car_analogy 4y ago
In peer review, if a small clique of authors reviewed each-other's articles favorably, while ignoring, and being ignored, by the rest of their field, that would be ethically problematic. If NYBR reviewers mostly review books by other NYBR reviewers, while ignoring the tremendous amount of other quality authors and literature, that is likewise problematic. Unless one speciously defines the type of book that NYBR would review as its own genre (analogous to a researchers field), shrinking the candidate literature down what NYBR reviews.
- aahortwwy 4y ago
  > In peer review, if a small clique of authors reviewed each-other's articles favorably, while ignoring, and being ignored, by the rest of their field, that would be ethically problematic. The comparison to peer review is perfect, because exactly this happens across many areas of research. Any area where the pool of potential reviewers is small enough that everyone (sort of) knows everyone else, the process tends to get corrupted by concerns over personal networks, careers, grant funding, etc. etc. Much as prestigious book review cliques get corrupted by networks, careers, access to publishers, etc. etc.

Sounds like peer review? It's difficult to find people who can provide an informed analysis of an activity unless you choose from amongst people who can do that activity themselves

hkt 4y ago

Exactly this. I found out the embarrassing way (by asking a journalism tutor) how to end up being a writer like Perry Anderson because I enjoyed one of his longer pieces in the LRB, reviewing the work of an illustrious writer on the history of the EU (Luk van de Midelaar). He told me if I wanted to be like that, I'd need to contribute to the New Left Review for six decades and also be a Marxist historian. The point being, becoming a peer of that kind is impossible to do through academia, so some people consider it "clubby". It is, perhaps, that these people have been both commercially successful in their niche and influential that confers that peerhood, not shared social ties (although I'm certain those form too).

car_analogy 4y ago

In peer review, if a small clique of authors reviewed each-other's articles favorably, while ignoring, and being ignored, by the rest of their field, that would be ethically problematic. If NYBR reviewers mostly review books by other NYBR reviewers, while ignoring the tremendous amount of other quality authors and literature, that is likewise problematic. Unless one speciously defines the type of book that NYBR would review as its own genre (analogous to a researchers field), shrinking the candidate literature down what NYBR reviews.

aahortwwy 4y ago
> In peer review, if a small clique of authors reviewed each-other's articles favorably, while ignoring, and being ignored, by the rest of their field, that would be ethically problematic. The comparison to peer review is perfect, because exactly this happens across many areas of research. Any area where the pool of potential reviewers is small enough that everyone (sort of) knows everyone else, the process tends to get corrupted by concerns over personal networks, careers, grant funding, etc. etc. Much as prestigious book review cliques get corrupted by networks, careers, access to publishers, etc. etc.