If you’re going to MLA’s 2008 annual meeting in Chicago in May, and you have a blog, consider applying for one of 15 “Official MLA Conference Blogger” spots. If selected, you’ll get free wireless access at the conference hotel and the opportunity to share your insights and experiences at the conference, officially, with the MLA community.

Deadline for application is May 1st, according to this MLA Conference Blog post about it.

Link to entry form

Have a look at the site where the first chapter of the book is being commented on at http://grandtextauto.org/2008/01/22/expressive-processing-an-experiment-in-blog-based-peer-review/  and then follow future chapters at posts that begin with EP.  One can see that the comments that have been left so far are quite different than a traditional peer review.  A peer review generally summarizes the piece being reviewed and points out a few things that the writer should reconsider, change, or add to.  The comments on this blog are very specific, down to the paragraph level.  The comments are not anonymous, though they could be.

This process advances the idea of openness in peer review and creates a collegiality that encourages conversation about aspects of the book.  There’s a give and take, a grass-roots mood that is common on blogs, that may actually produce a better product in the end.  I’ll stay tuned to this and post updates when the author finishes the peer- and blog-review process to see which produces better quality, the wisdom-of-the-crowds approach or the few-experts approach.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts?  Does peer review get muddied by including non experts, or should peer review be opened up to include anyone who wants a say?