Here’s an interesting post from Jeremy, at Progressive Historians, who’s wrestling with several issues, including the lack of professional rewards for scholarly bloggers.

There’s a lot going on in Jeremy’s post. But it pivots on the provocative question of how blog comments differ from peer review. After writing up a response to that, and some of his other points, I decided that my arguments were cramped — very old media — and curmudgeonly. So, I’ll pass his post along without further comment and hope to generate a discussion about the point of history blogging, professional rewards for scholarly blogging more generally, and the nature of peer review.

About these ads