, , , , ,

Whatever the so-called «Jesus’ Wife Gospel» is authentic or not, the media marketing around this fragment has the advantage to make more visible the presence of the women in Ancient Christianities, and to speak to a wide audience about some Gnostic texts such as the Gospel of Philipp. It is good in itself.

But the authentic «scoop» of this announcement stands at another level: in an article written by Jeanna Bryner in LiveScience, on the 19th of October, we learn that the Harvard Theological Review renounces to publish Karen King’s article in the number of January 2013, whose draft is available online. As I suggested in another blog, the most interessant point of this episode is probably its impact in terms of digital culture. It forecasts and figures the transformation of the peer-review process of the scientific articles in Humanities, a strongly established point in the scholarly life.

The present withdraw of the article by HTR raised diverse reactions, as J. Bryner tells: Andrew Bernhard, Oxford university graduate, considers that it is an historical moment in the academic process, with a moove to more transparence and openess in the peer-review process. Hershel Shanks (Biblical Archeogical Society) considers this withdrawing as a «shame» and something «coward», whereas Robert Bagnall waits prudently for the last analysis of the document.

We have here an interesting example of the turning-point announced by Kathleen Fitzpatrick in her excellent book Planned Obsolescence. Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy, available online: «I want to suggest that the time has come for us to consider whether, really, we might all be better served by separating the question of credentialing from the publishing process, by allowing everything through the gate, and by designing a post-publication peer review process taht focuses on how a scholarly text should be received rather than whether it should be out there in the first place».

Karen King’s article’s draft leads to such a transformation. First, it mentions some opinions of the peer-reviewers of the article, something unusual and new. Secondly, it is now reviewed by a number of other scholars on diverse websites, including this one. What is missing here is the centralisation and the moderation of the debate. As I told in my preceding blog, the Harvard Divinity School did not dare to propose also a blog / forum of discussion, a kind of a first «post-publication peer-review » process of the draft article. It should have been done, it should be done, rather than to count of an old mode of publication in a journal.

A historical point of view is here required: at the 17th century, the scientific journals were born, because they were the better way to diffuse quickly the opinions. In the English speaking world, the «Philosophical Transactions» have begun to spread scientific articles in 1662. In the French speaking world, as Dominique Vinck reminds (Hermès 57, 2010), the «Journal des Savants» succeded in 1665 to the informal network of scientific letters, hold by Father Mersenne with 200 scholars in Europe.

It is almost evident to assert today that we are facing a similar turn. The quality of the scientific exchanges requires now the transformation of the academic literary production. As Kathleen Fitzpatrick proposes it, one has now to dissociate the moment of the publication from this one of the credentialing. One needs an efficient post-publication peer-review process, with the moderation of the opinions of the best scholars in the field.

If we go in that direction, we will only realize what Charles S. Pierce discribed several decades ago:«The very origin of the conception of reality shows that this conception essentially involves the notion of a COMMUNITY, without definite limits, and capable of an indefinite increase of knowledge. And so those two series of cognitions – the real and the unreal – consist of those which, at a time sufficiently future, the community will always continue to reaffirm; and of those which, under the same conditions, will ever after be denied» (Peirce, The Essential Peirce, vol. 1, Houser et alii (ed.), p. 52).