Options
Would an archive of "peer reviewed" articles and books be helpful to collectors?
RogerB
Posts: 8,967 ✭✭✭✭✭
We've all read hobby articles that are either grossly exaggerated or flat-out wrong in one or more key points. Newer work - say within the past 20 or 25 years - seems better. But I wonder if there is a way to identify errors in published material so that new readers can be aware of mistakes?
For example NNP has no acceptance criteria for materials they store. Would it be helpful if there were a "peer reviewed" section where everything was read by hobby experts and checked for accuracy?
Just curious.
0
Comments
I think you should ask authors, but I’m not sure how many are here. Doing a survey to local clubs via the ANA may help for casual writers.
As a reader, I’ve been happy for any information people can put together, often with limited time and budget. I wouldn’t want something to limit the information being added to the NNP.
Perhaps you can offer commentary for items stored in the NNP?
The Journal of Early American Numismatics (JEAN) and the American Journal of Numismatics (AJN) are peer-reviewed. It would be great to have more such publications, but the audience for these is already fairly small.
It may be more effective to encourage critical thinking than to try to correct all the mistakes in print. The other important thing to do is to make original source materials as available as possible.
I'm not sure how well this would work out. This hobby is very quirky. Many issues in this hobby have sparse documentation supporting them and so many are forced to rely on innuendo and speculation. For instance, there are issues known that should have never been struck, etc. Another example would be specimen coinage. One expert's "specimen" or "branch mint proof" might be another's DMPL business strike. You obviously get the idea.
Also, how would the experts be selected? The are many "experts" both historical and current that I would place very little faith in. To give a historical example, Walter Breen comes into mind as someone who was once well regarded but whose works have now come into question. I can think of a couple of other so called "experts" that are still active whose judgment I would question (not a snipe at anyone - PM clarification sent).
IMHO the average collector cares more about his $5 eBay bux than the quality of his journalism. So no, don’t think so.
It would be a tedious task and without reward....Those vested in the information would condemn it, and those interested would be quietly thankful. Either way, a small audience. Cheers, RickO
Whatever the topic, I always prefer content that is peer reviewed or selected by a worthy curating editor. In the Internet era, the problem is not a lack of content, rather it is a lack of curated information.
My strategy is about collecting what I intend to keep, not investing in what I plan to sell.
My Dad had a sturdy concrete building for 'curating' hams. Pitch black on the inside from smoke, but what an aroma.
I don't think it's a bad idea, Roger. Problem is that if someone spent the time and energy to have a book printed, how many individuals would be considered their "peer"?
We lonely denizens of the Dreck crowd would be considered a "no voice" to a crusty upper-upper crusty type author.
Were you the Curator to the "Curated" Hams?
Pete
There seems to be a significant number of individuals who are expert in certain specialties, but have few, or no, publications. Just curious about interest at this point.
RE: "Were you the Curator to the "Curated" Hams?"
No. I was the second alternate test taster. My Dad was arbiter of abattoir products. Fresh whole hams were coated with a mixture of potassium nitrate, salt and brown sugar/molasses, then smoked for a week (only green and aged hickory), and hung to cure for a year. It was a hobby. A $10 ham sold to his special clients for $100+ for Thanksgiving and Christmas feasts.
NNP - it's hard to "peer review" anything when so much of it is still under copyright. NNP seems to have a vast "index" of articles, but it's useless if you can't see it. I checked with one specific publication on one specific topic, based on the NNP index, and even if I subscribed I still wouldn't be able to view it. This is the problem with research in our hobby. Where am I going to find a library with 40 year old Coin World? What "peer reviewer" is going to have any better access than me?
Then on top of it, where do you go to correct or flag anything? Somebody might know more than anybody about Barber dime reverse design changes, but how do they tell NGC and Bowers' Red Book and... etc, that their information is wrong?
Yep -- and that does not account for legitimate differences of opinion....Maybe it's just not workable.
@RogerB do you think your research should be peer reviewed? If so, who would you consider qualified to be a peer reviewer of your work?
Yes. Reviewers depend somewhat on the subject, but past reviewers of drafts include most of the "names" in research, plus collector specialists. Look in the "Acknowledgement" statements for the names of some. (Additional folks prefer to remain anonymous, and I respect that by not disclosing their contributions.)
I also have manuscripts reviewed by copy editors, and ordinary readers - both to catch mistakes and help assess readability.
In turn, I often review manuscripts for others - books or articles - whenever the author/editor feels I might be able to help. I also contribute information and data from my archive to others.
In general, the only paid work is by copy editors. (Unsolicited ad: One of the very best copy editors I know of is Arlene Prunkl at PenUltimate Editorial Services, penultimateword.com, in Canada. Meticulous, careful, thoughtful, accurate. She can also correctly edit for US, Canadian or UK publication.)
Roger: You did not allude to the fact that your question included you.
You''re OK in my numismatic "book".
Pete
Thanks ! Appreciate the confidence.
Who should review Breen's work? It's certainly much needed.
IIRC, Breen's Encyclopedia recieved a line-by-line review about fifteen years ago before a new edition was published. The job was undertaken by a younger associate of QDB whose name escapes me right now.
Perhaps this is a false memory, but I recall being introduced to someone in Colorado Springs who had line checked Breen's Encyclopedia.
Would peer review discourage new research or opinions that do nor conform to current thoughts? Sometimes an outlying idea eventually becomes accepted as fact. Would this happen in the face of peer review?
Just a thought.
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
I think a good approach to copyright is to license content using the Creative Commons license like Wikipedia. This may not work for commercial enterprises but for small time publishers, this may ensure their work lives on and can be updated. Perhaps something to put in a will?
https://creativecommons.org/
Specifically, Wikipedia uses the Attribution, Share-Alike license:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License
It could be a good idea, but there is so much cronyism and other forms of bias within numismatics that reviews may not be completely objective.
Most numismatic publications have value, or they can be early research that was not complete or entirely accurate when written. Numismatic specialists generally will correct these over time. Example with the progression of early half dollar references - Haseltine/Randall, Beistle, Overton, Parsley, Tompkins.
Academic peer review is not censorship or cronyism. It's part of maintaining research standards. Methodology is extremely important in such reviews, although with numismatic and historical subjects we run into limitations and bias within possible sources. Professional historians have published standards and methodologies that can be extended to numismatics - just as they already encompass archeology (a "consumer" of numismatic information).
Nysoto rightly remarks:
"Most numismatic publications have value, or they can be early research that was not complete or entirely accurate when written. Numismatic specialists generally will correct these over time. Example with the progression of early half dollar references - Haseltine/Randall, Beistle, Overton, Parsley, Tompkins."
This is all good, but the new person, does not have the skills to know which is the better reference and why. While not strictly peer review, it can present a consensus opinion about the accuracy and utility of a published work.