Click here to edit contents of this page.
Click here to toggle editing of individual sections of the page (if possible). Watch headings for an "edit" link when available.
Append content without editing the whole page source.
Check out how this page has evolved in the past.
If you want to discuss contents of this page - this is the easiest way to do it.
View and manage file attachments for this page.
A few useful tools to manage this Site.
See pages that link to and include this page.
Change the name (also URL address, possibly the category) of the page.
View wiki source for this page without editing.
View/set parent page (used for creating breadcrumbs and structured layout).
Notify administrators if there is objectionable content in this page.
Something does not work as expected? Find out what you can do.
General Wikidot.com documentation and help section.
Wikidot.com Terms of Service - what you can, what you should not etc.
Wikidot.com Privacy Policy.
Outcomes of research in Architecture could range from Policy to project, methodology to models, techniques to technology, and theories to hypotheses. Whatever the outcome would be, it would carry the characteristics of Objectivity, Reliability, Verifiability and Applicability. All outputs include written argumentation attaching to preceding knowledge, relevant to the scientific community.
Comments on the Esra Fidanoglu’s proposal “Thinking on a model for evaluation of architectural research materials” ,
Ferran Sagarra. Dean of ETSAB.
The publication and research evaluation existing model during the 20th century is facing new challenges in the 21st century because of the rise of the Internet and electronic publishing.
In the 20th century, and still now, scientific papers were published by scientific journals. The editors of the scientific journals asked to experts in a particular field (referees) to review the quality of the manuscripts received. This model based on peer review has clearly been a success. However, it has sometimes been criticized because of its anonymity and the suspicion of lack of neutrality, notwithstanding anonymity is the main strong point of the existing model.
In the 21st century electronic publishing and Internet are changing this monolithic model into a less defined one. Traditional peer review journals still exist but new models of publication and evaluation of research are emerging.
One of the most significant changes is the Open Access (OA) movement for which scholar literature must be available to the reader without barriers. This movement is supported by a wide range of institutions and universities that are now funding once for research instead of paying several times for the same scientific research (investment base, publishing fees and subscription of academic journals).
There are several OA options: full OA journals (DOAJ -http://www.doaj.org/-), journals that have some articles in a “paid OA” option and there is also the chance to self-archive a paper in an institutional repository (such as UPCommons) or a thematic one (such as arXiv in Physics). Institutional repositories are strategic for most universities because it is the way to collect, disseminate and preserve all knowledge created within the institution.
In addition to this, web 2.0 is providing Internet with a huge amount of materials to be, legally, remixed and reused. Therefore, collaboration and participation in the Internet, tagging and the wisdom of crowds are basic concepts to understand this new digital era. As so for the documents, because from now on one digital document may have several versions and it is difficult to assure its invariability.
Nowadays, some other models apart from the traditional peer-review are emerging, for instance open peer-review or post-publication peer-review focusing in transparency and speed publication time.
Finally, we would like to stress the following points:
While it is true that some materials that are not traditionally considered as being scientific are of interest for students and scholars, such as ‘learning objects’, it is also true that these kind of materials are usually stored and disseminated through learning repositories, for instance OpenCourseWareMIT < http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm > and OpenCourseWare UPC < http://upcommons.upc.edu/ocw/home >.
Nowadays, there is indeed a demand to review these materials which are not scholar articles although it is not clear which type of review may be suitable.
The “EAAE website providing open access…” should be a thematic repository of architecture and related issues instead of a “website”, in which self-archive research papers, mostly in preprint versions as it happens in other subject areas. One of the most famous thematic repositories is ArXiv within Physics.
Wikipedia is a general collaborative encyclopaedia and does not fit scientific discussion. Its veracity and scientific rigor mainly depends on the ‘wisdom of crowds’. On the other hand, wikis as tools (and not particularly Wikipedia) are used successfully for collaboration online.
One of the best ways to contribute to the Open Access (OA) movement is to encourage institutions to support OA and to raise awareness about it to researchers and to all scientific community.
A great number of universities have already adopt OA mandates for the purpose of open dissemination of scholar publications in institutional repositories which constitutes the most efficient policy regarding OA in universities and academic institutions.
Moreover, new laws and projects are giving an increasing legal support to these actions (for example, OpenAIRE project < http://www.openaire.eu/ > and, in Spain, the recently updated PhD Real Decreto 99/2011
< http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/02/10/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-2541.pdf >.
As a conclusion, we suggest EAAE to encourage its members to adopt these policies to preserve and disseminate, at a global scale, their scientific production.
Bibliography
BOLDT, A. Extending ArXiv.Org to Achieve Open Peer Review and Publishing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 2011, vol. 42, no. 2. pp. 238-242.
KELTY, C. M.; BURRUS, C. S.and BARANIUK, R. G. Peer Review Anew: Three Principles and a Case Study in Postpublication Quality Assurance. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2008, vol. 96, no. 6. pp. 1000-1011.
PÖSCHL, U. Interactive Open Access Publishing and Public Peer Review: The Effectiveness of Transparency and Self-Regulation in Scientific Quality Assurance. IFLA Journal, 2010, vol. 36, no. 1. pp. 40-46.
PÖSCHL, U. Interactive Open Access Publishing and Peer Review: The Effectiveness and Perspectives of Transparency and Self-Regulation in Scientific Communication and Evaluation. LIBER Quarterly, 2010, vol. 19, no. 3-4. pp. 293-314.
Seminar for Open Access to Science Information: policies for development of AO in Southern Europe. http://oaseminar.fecyt.es/Publico/report/index.aspx. [Accessed: 16-03-2011].
It is important to note that some architectural research does not meet characteristics of Objectivity, Reliability, Verifiability and Applicability!
RbD may include highly subjective / intuitive / exploratory characteristics;
its reliability and verifiability may be subject to further implementation without this being pejorative for the research
It may not be applicable without creative reiteration.
But this should maybe go under assessment criteria…