Social peer review and humanities


The article deals with the evaluation of papers published in specialized journal of the Humanities area. Assessment techniques, qualitative (ex-ante) and quantitative (ex-post), became a fundamental instrument of the academic research. This paper traces the evolution of the evaluation techniques, describing the different methods for peer-review (a very well known praxis for the exact sciences, while still not used much in humanities for historical, epistemological, and economic reasons). Some experimental forms of peer-review are due to the digital environment and to Web 2.0, and started to be used to set up a new assessment practice for humanities. This so called social peer-review is a more appropriate to humanities, and presents many experimental examples based both on qualitative and quantitative methods. Those methods represent a valid option in order to contribute to the academic and cultural debate, and to raise up the level of the research in Humanities.


Academic libraries; Humanities; Peer review; Research assessment; Web 2.0

Full Text:

PDF (Italiano)




Benevenuti, Giuliana. Ha ancora senso parlare di periodici di cultura? Bibliotime  13. (2010). xiii-1/benvenuti.htm. Online.

Cassella, Maria. La valutazione della ricerca nelle scienze umane. Quaderni del CNBA. (2009). Online.

—. Peer review innovations in humanities: how can scholars in A&H profit from the "wisdom of the crowds". BOBCATSSS. 2010. Online.

Cerrone,  Andrea.  Valutare  la  scienza  sociale  nell'epoca  della  società  della conoscenza. Quaderni di sociologia 53. (2009): 169181. A stampa.

Cope, Bill e Mary Kalantzis. Signs of epistemic disruption: transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal. First Monday 6. (2009). Online.

Crossick, Geoffrey. Journals in the arts and humanities: thier role in evaluation. Serials: the journal for the serials community 20. (2007): 184187. A stampa.

De Robbio, Antonella. Analisi citazionale e indicatori bibliometrici nel modello Open Access. Bollettino AIB 47. (2007): 257288. Online.

Di Donato, Francesca. La scienza e la rete: l'uso pubblico della ragione nell'età del web. Firenze university press, 2009. Online.

Farkas, Meredith. Social software in libraries: building collaboration, communication and community online. Information Today, 2007. A stampa.

Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. CommentPress: new (social) structures for the new (net-worked) texts. Journal of electronic publishing 10. doi : 10.3998/3336451.0010.305. (2007). Online.

Garfield, Eugene e Alfred Welljams-Dorof. Citation data: their us as quantitative indicators for science and technology evaluation and policy-making. Essays of an information scientist 1992-1993. ISI press, 1993. Online.

Greaves, Sarah, et al. Nature's trial of open peer review. Nature  444. doi: 10.1038/nature05535. (2006). A stampa.

Guédon, Jean-Claude. Open Access and the divide between "mainstream" and "peripheral" science. 2007. Online.

Harnad, Stevan. The self-archiving initiative. Nature 410. (2001): 10241025. A stampa.

Koop, Thomas e Ulrich Poeschl. Systems: an open, two-stage peer-review journal: the editors of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics explain their journal approach. Nature 444. doi: 10.1038/nature04988. (2006). Online.

Kronick,  David  A.  Peer  review  in  the  18th  century  scientic  journalism. JAMA 263. (1990): 13211322. A stampa.

Lessig, Lawrence. Remix:  il  futuro  del  copyright  (e  delle  nuove  generazioni). Etas, 2009. A stampa.

Let data speak to data. Nature 438. doi : 10.1038/438531a. (2005). Online.

Maurel, Lionel. Le droit d'auteur dans l'économie de la connaissance. BBF 1. (2009): 612. Online.

McCormack, Nancy. Peer review and legal publishing: what law libraries need to know about open, single blind and double blind reviewing. Law library journal 101. (2009). Online.

Palumbo, Riccardo, Emanuela Reale e Marco Seeber. Il finanziamento della ricerca e gli eetti sulla performance. La valutazione della ricerca pubblica. Franco Angeli, 2008. Online.

Smith, Richard. Opening up BMJ peer review. British medical journal 318. (1999). Online.

Taraborelli, Dario. Soft peer review: social software and distributed scientific evaluation. International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems. 2008. Online.

Unsworth,  John.  The  humanist:  "dances  with  wolves"  or  "bowls  alone?" Scholarly tribes and tribulations: how tradition and technology are driving disicplinary change. Association of Research Libraries, 2003. Online.

Ware, Mark e Michael Mabe. The STM report an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Online.

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2010 Maria Cassella

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. is a journal of UNIFI-SAGAS published by EUM - edizioni università di macerata