Yes, but what I referred to as futile (which I may now change to "difficult") is defining peer review in the current context and as it is practiced today, which I think would be very different from alternate models that might evolve in the future. We can always try to (re)define how we want to envision peer review for the future and how we want it to be practiced (from its purpose, methodology, usage, analysis, etc.) - we can build models from this definition and see what might suit us better.

It is very much different from trying to define the mosaic peer review that is practiced in disparate ways towards very different ends today.

Best wishes,
Pavi

########################################################################

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives:
https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
[log in to unmask]

########################################################################