Options
"Your facts and conclusions should be analyzed before publication, rather than criticized after
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
I was reading the latest issue of the Asylum, and Dennis Tucker wrote a really fine article about how to succeed in numismatic publishing. The article was so good, in fact, that I will ask him to sign a copy for me the next time I see him.
In the article, Tucker makes the following statement, in relation to having your manuscript peer reviewed prior to publication: "your facts and conclusions should be analyzed before publication, rather than criticized after."
For the authors in the house:
(1) I assume that any book that is published by a big publisher will be peer reviewed. Does the author have any say in who reviews the manuscript?
(2) What assurances does peer reviewing provide if the book is a ground-breaking work, and the contents might challenge a lot of numismatic myths?
(3) Should the peer reviewers not be active dealers, in order to avoid conflicts of interest if the book provides an unflattering view of a series, or highlights that certain coins are not as excessively rare as we thought?
(4) If self publishing, do authors get any sort of "free pass" if their books are not thoroughly peer reviewed?
(5) Is peer review in place to protect the author, or the publisher (or both), because a bad book can be very damaging?
In the article, Tucker makes the following statement, in relation to having your manuscript peer reviewed prior to publication: "your facts and conclusions should be analyzed before publication, rather than criticized after."
For the authors in the house:
(1) I assume that any book that is published by a big publisher will be peer reviewed. Does the author have any say in who reviews the manuscript?
(2) What assurances does peer reviewing provide if the book is a ground-breaking work, and the contents might challenge a lot of numismatic myths?
(3) Should the peer reviewers not be active dealers, in order to avoid conflicts of interest if the book provides an unflattering view of a series, or highlights that certain coins are not as excessively rare as we thought?
(4) If self publishing, do authors get any sort of "free pass" if their books are not thoroughly peer reviewed?
(5) Is peer review in place to protect the author, or the publisher (or both), because a bad book can be very damaging?
Always took candy from strangers
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
0
Comments
Absolutely!
shoo nuf
Even if the work is in a new area, reviewers offer a good "sniff test" to tell if the author is consulting good resources and taking care to cover all the bases. In other words, they can confirm if your methodology is good or not, even if they can't speak for the results.
Regarding dealers, collectors can also cause trouble. As was recounted recently in Coin World, authors Newman & Bressett were threatened with lawsuits before they published their work on 1804 dollars, presumably with the idea that certain collectors thought publication of the work would damage the value of their coins (in reality the opposite was probably true).
There is no "free pass" for self publishers. Either the research is respected or it isn't, regardless of who published it.
Peer review isn't necessarily for protection, it is really to try and put out the best product that you can. Two sets of eyes are usually better than one.
I have since found a couple people that will hopefully let me use their knowledge for peer review purposes for future projects/editions.
My present project of supercloseup photography is so optics intensive that I have had to find people outside of coins to help me get things straight. Very complicated stuff.
K
1) Some research that is first presented can't be reviewed by anyone else, as the information is completely new. I'm doing this right now with the "Franklin Hoard" materials. I fully expect to have to defend my research and can do so with what facts are available.
The writing can be reviewed by another set of eyes and secondary comments can be quite useful in determining how it reads, are clarifications needed, etc.
2) Even when you present little known facts, that aren't routinely copied in subsequent numismatic literature, you still receive criticism that is based on the narrow minded focus of others.
A small example was when I was criticised for mentioning in my Henry Voigt book that Jean-Pierre Blanchard's first American balloon ascention, which President Washington witnessed in January of 1793, was filled with hydrogen and not hot air. This particular unlearned individual approached me and stated "it would blow up like the Hindenburg". Needless to say, they didn't use propane gas burners in the 18th century.
Dennis’s comment makes good sense. Whether you are writing a short article for you club newsletter or a magnificent tome of infinite pages, the author should strive for accuracy. Although there are many sources of numismatic information, it is always best to ask a knowledgeable person to read your material and offer suggestions.
When writing for publication, the author might employ a copy editor (for consistency, basic grammar, punctuation, etc.) and/or a content editor (for structure, style, word choice, etc.). In addition to these technical editors, the author should try to have the work peer reviewed. In some instances, such as work that is largely new to the hobby, that might not be possible. But most of the time, there will be several people who can point out mistakes, misconceptions and flaws in logic. If the material is presented in an orderly manner and arguments logically built, then it is more likely that others will understand what the author is saying and agree.
Even with all the research on the subject there is bound to be something that you didn't find or overlooked,
even by accident, that can be brought up to the author in a friendly, non challenging, constructive way.
Therefore, criticism can lead to the next edition which may be much better than the first edition?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
bob
Learned that the hard way.
Now that's funny!
Check out the Southern Gold Society
There are journals that are subsidized by vested interests and may have very light reviews; they are not well regarded but may be widely distributed for marketing purposes. Publishers of journals and books have a redactors that read papers for format, syntax and spelling.
Books are dealt with variably; they are often not peer reviewed for accuracy of content but are read by editors for decision making. I have no experience on the review process for popular books (fiction or non-fiction) but I suspect that this is to a great extent not "outside peer -reviewed" but based on editorial decisions. Peer review of books on scholarly or popular topics may occur for marketing purposes after decision on publishing.
I have not yet published any books, but have written a number of original articles, all were requested by the editor and published rather quickly to meet a deadline. Yes, all could have benefitted from better copy editing! I would not have changed any of the basic concepts from peer review. I am currently working on an article that combines new archival information and engineering processes, I will use better copy editing, but will publish the findings without peer approval.
edit - I did consult John Dannreuther and others on one article, which did improve it and added credibility.
Sure, we copy figures from the Mint Director reports, we try to analyze how something was done, and by whom, but...in reality...
Most of the acquired knowledge regarding American numismatics has come from interpretations by writers that came along after the "fact".
The first 50 years of coinage production at the Philadelphia Mint is a prime example, as there was little interest in collecting the coins, let alone getting the "facts".
Instead, we must look for clues that create the evidence for what really happened.
I'm not so sure about that. After all, we all "publish" our thoughts on this forum before getting feedback. The feedback comes later. That works well, and the facts come fast enough.
That leads me to the obvious conclusion that the same feedback process should work well for "real publications", if only they were done electronically instead of on paper.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i> (1) I assume that any book that is published by a big publisher will be peer reviewed. Does the author have any say in who reviews the manuscript? >>
In the academic world, authors are often asked for recommendations for reviewers, but the publisher does not have to abide by them.
However, as a practical matter, publishers often contact these people to be reviewers anyway as it is a path of least resistance.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>(5) Is peer review in place to protect the author, or the publisher (or both), because a bad book can be very damaging? >>
Peer review is primarily intended to protect the publisher, but it also protects the author and the community-at-large.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
I have a somewhat different view; peer review serves multiple functions.
In critical journals it provides a functional way to judge the quality of the contribution and thus assist the editor in priority of acceptance, identify errors of commission and omission, make suggestions to the author and editor for needed additional information, and to edit for syntax and spelling. In the scholarly world , peer review almost always improves a manuscript.
Protection of the publisher for plagerizism is an important function but is not the principal role of peer review.
Numismatic authors should welcome the opportunity to have their article and book drafts read by others knowledgeable in the field. A great deal of misinformation could be avoided if hobby publications and websites did this. Further, if auction companies took the time to have their descriptions of major items independently reviewed, I suspect a large quantity of numismatic coprolite could be eliminated. (Puns intended.)
[Yes, there will be exceptions, particularly new observational documentary discoveries, where it is incumbent on the discoverer to provide ample support in the absence of prior knowledge.]
<< <i>Here, here!
Numismatic authors should welcome the opportunity to have their article and book drafts read by others knowledgeable in the field. A great deal of misinformation could be avoided if hobby publications and websites did this. Further, if auction companies took the time to have their descriptions of major items independently reviewed, I suspect a large quantity of numismatic coprolite could be eliminated. (Puns intended.)
[Yes, there will be exceptions, particularly new observational documentary discoveries, where it is incumbent on the discoverer to provide ample support in the absence of prior knowledge.] >>
Peer-review (ideally, at least 2 anonymous reviewers) of manuscripts (book or journal) should be the norm. However, one cannot really expect drafts of entries for 'major items' in auction catalogs to be independently reviewed, because this would necessitate that the reviewers have access to the coins as well. This would also increase the auction house's costs, which would be passed on to customers (likely higher buyer's premiums).