Page:A Review of the Open Educational Resources Movement.pdf/34

 "Rather than make a single pre-review accept/reject decision regarding each module, Connexions opens up the editorial process to third-party reviewers and editorial bodies for post-review. While Connexions users will have access to all modules and courses in the Content Commons (whatever their quality), users will also have the ability to preferentially locate and view modules and courses rated high quality by choosing from a range of different lenses provided by third parties. Each lens has a different focus. As a simple example of a lens, imagine a professional society independent of Connexions, such as the American Physical Society, that sets up a Web page containing a list of all physics Connexions modules and courses that it deems high quality. It can also post reviews of those modules and courses. The list would prove indispensable to students and instructors who trust the opinions of this society. Indeed, users will be able to configure their Roadmap browser to view preferentially those modules approved by the editorial bodies of their choice. Of course, users will always have the option of turning off all “lenses” to view the commons in its entirety."

The lens analog used above and other related methods for future use derive from a growing body of research on collaborative filtering, recommender systems, and reputation systems. The same idea has also been explored in the PICS system to support Internet access control without censorship.

A relevant recent development is Nature magazine’s experiment with open peer review. In the trial, the papers selected for traditional peer review were, in a parallel option offered to authors, hosted for public comment. In the event, 5 percent of authors took up this option. Although most authors found at least some value in the comments they received, they were few, and editors did not think they contributed significantly to their decisions.

The disappointing aspect was not the author participation (which was in line with our expectations) or general levels of interest and web traffic (both good), but the number and average quality of the comments. So (1) open peer review doesn’t work, (2) the particular approach they used doesn’t work, or (3) scientists aren’t ready for it yet. The trial results alone don’t allow us to tease