response to Why Academic Papers Are A Terrible Discussion
I agree academic papers aren't good for
discussion with the "real" world, but why are books the logical
alternative? How about blogs, Facebook posts, Tweets, and Wikipedia
updates? Could we invent a system to value our academic
contributions through those media? Can we adapt the peer-review
system to accommodate these new possibilities to show scholar
relevance to the world? Could we win prizes for online
better for discussions and we should be able to come up with some
kind of quality review. Question
is how we get enough people to participate. This question about
participation may be related to the questions about quality review
above. At the moment, the
incentives to publish papers are much greater than the incentives
to participate in the public debate on marketing matters. In that
sense, my snide remark above about winning a prize for commenting
may not be a throwaway comment.
Basically, I'd predict that if
participation in public debate is incentivised over paper
publishing, participation increases, which will lead to greater
scrutiny of contributions, which will lead to higher quality.
However, I do not yet see how a clear quality review system can
come from that... Is that perhaps where the Creativity Marketing
Centre comes in?