next »

[kristoferb]

I'm a lawyer... so I've been around. And my ‘lingo’ is understood just fine here in the EU...

A thesis is a paper done during the course of one’s studies which is marked.... If it weren't evaluated (e.g.: marked) in some fashion, it wouldn't be much of an evaluation would it now? 

You do seem a bit hesitant to actually answer my question.... so I’ll ask again: how does the definition of ‘good scholarship’ differ depending on what the process is called? 

[sciencephd]

I'm a lawyer... so I've been around. And my ‘lingo’ is understood just fine here in the EU...

A thesis is a paper done during the course of one’s studies which is marked.... If it weren't evaluated (e.g.: marked) in some fashion, it wouldn't be much of an evaluation would it now? 

You do seem a bit hesitant to actually answer my question.... so I’ll ask again: how does the definition of ‘good scholarship’ differ depending on what the process is called? 

You're a lawyer ?  Then it makes sense that you're not familiar with academic peer review and the difference between a doctoral thesis and a peer-reviewed journal article.

This discussion is about academics (ie people with PhD's) publishing with VDM, and the usefulness or lack thereof to advance an academic career. 

[kristoferb]

My initial comments were merely in relation to those suggesting VDM is a vanity press (which it isn’t). Now, as far as advancing ones academic career though VDM (aside from an initial forée) – probably not a huge benefit.   

And yes, in Law it is rare enough to have an LLM, let alone a PhD. We publish just like anyone else though... 

[kristoferb]

Then it makes sense that you're not familiar with academic peer review and the difference between a doctoral thesis and a peer-reviewed journal article.

[/quote]

You still haven’t told me why ‘journal scholarship’ is different from ‘thesis scholarship’.... 

[sciencephd]

You still haven’t told me why ‘journal scholarship’ is different from ‘thesis scholarship’.... 

1. the standards for scholarship are not the same 2. the audience is not the same 3. reviewers are not selected for a thesis in the same way that journal articles are (ie by an editor) and 4.  journal review is anonymous.

[kristoferb]

So if we set aside rather meaningless aspects like the anonymity (principally to protect the writer), involvement of an editor (what difference does this make?) and audience (again, don’t see how this is relevant) we are left with the concept of scholarship.

I want to know – putting aside the fact that journals have limited space (etc.) and have to chose between may good submissions – why scholarship written for an article and scholarship written for a PhD are two totally different and irreconcilable things? You assert that they are, but you fail to point out any reason why that is so. You mention different 'standards', but you fail to mention any specific aspects thereof.

[infopri]

You still haven’t told me why ‘journal scholarship’ is different from ‘thesis scholarship’.... 

1. the standards for scholarship are not the same 2. the audience is not the same 3. reviewers are not selected for a thesis in the same way that journal articles are (ie by an editor) and 4.  journal review is anonymous.

Exactly.  And to elaborate on #1 a little bit, the purpose of the scholarship itself is not the same.  Yes, yes, we all know that theses/dissertations are supposed to add new knowledge and all that, but their true primary purpose is simply to demonstrate that the candidate knows how to do independent research, and the work is judged largely within that context. 

And yes, in Law it is rare enough to have an LLM, let alone a PhD. We publish just like anyone else though... 

No, not just like anyone else.  Legal scholarship mostly gets published in law reviews, which are published by student editors.  There is no peer review.  This is not at all the way the rest of academia works.

[kristoferb]

Ah, ha! Finally. This is, however, only a question of degree. Those articles (however they started life) which contribute the most significantly will find their way into journals. This does not mean that other articles have nothing to say – it is mostly a factor of the technicalities of publishing a journal. If new innovations in publishing allow more articles to be published, doesn’t this benefit everyone? (I mean, get over the ‘new and scary’ aspect to it...)

There are many peer-reviewed law journals – just not in the USA.

[history_grrrl]

I recently got an inquiry from VDM about publishing my dissertation. I wrote back and said thanks but no thanks; I'm about to submit to an academic publisher. They don't even read their email! I got a reply thanking me for my interest in their press and providing further information. I guess my politeness was lost on them; maybe they only get replies from people who are interested.

[sciencephd]

So if we set aside rather meaningless aspects like the anonymity (principally to protect the writer), involvement of an editor (what difference does this make?) and audience (again, don’t see how this is relevant) we are left with the concept of scholarship.

I want to know – putting aside the fact that journals have limited space (etc.) and have to chose between may good submissions – why scholarship written for an article and scholarship written for a PhD are two totally different and irreconcilable things? You assert that they are, but you fail to point out any reason why that is so. You mention different 'standards', but you fail to mention any specific aspects thereof.

I listed four very significant differences.  You want to set them aside ?  If you "set aside" all of the differences, then I guess they look pretty similar.  It doesn't seem like you're looking to understand academic peer review or publishing.  You've come here to argue for VDM, and their complete lack of peer review.

What exactly is your interest in this topic ?  Your only posts on the CHE forums are on this thread.

[infopri]

What exactly is your interest in this topic ?  Your only posts on the CHE forums are on this thread.

Kristoferb seems to be one more in a growing line of people monikers who have registered on the fora simply to post on this thread in (ineffective, IMHO) defense of VDM.  Very curious.

[kristoferb]

My point – which you obviously miss – is that good scholarship is a universally applicable concept. The fact that something does not fit in the forthcoming issue of the journal or that it does not suit the audience are issues which are specific to that journal. They are NOT comments related to the overarching concept of good scholarship!

Yes, I understand there is a specific category of journals which are ‘peer-reviewed’ in a narrow, technical sense. My point is that good scholarship can be assured by methods other than peer-review! You do not seem able or willing to accept the possibility that the legitimate evaluation of scholarship can exist aside from peer-review. Sure, this distinction may matter for academics now... but this does not mean it makes eternal sense.

[kristoferb]

I have absolutely no connection with VDM aside from knowing someone who has published with them. Stop being childish.

[infopri]

I have absolutely no connection with VDM aside from knowing someone who has published with them. Stop being childish.

I was simply making an observation--an accurate one, which you can verify by reviewing this thread.  I said nothing about you being connected with VDM.  I think it's telling that you seem to think otherwise. 

I also did not call you names, and I expect the same courtesy from you.

[kristoferb]

You implied a connection. Clearly I am under no obligation to explain why I joined, but I will nonetheless simply to be clear. As I mentioned above, my main concern was pointing out the obvious difference between a ‘vanity press’ and what VDM does. And that what VDM does is legitimate in its own way, even if it is not technically a peer-reviewing academic publisher.