Best practice? The problem of peer reviewed creative practice research

Abstract

One of the key differences between creative writing and almost every other discipline in the humanities is that it lacks a scholarly apparatus that assigns value to published works through the process of peer review. In 2008, the Creative Practices Area at the University of Technology, Sydney conducted a double-blind review of an extended work of fiction in order to assess the impact of the peer review process on writers’ work. This study, and the problems it highlights, is timely in light of the Rudd government’s ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia) system for the quantification and evaluation of academic research - in particular, the planned introduction of a peer review process for creative works to be conducted and monitored by the ARC (Australian Research Council).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.