The material on this page is available to AustLit subscribers. If you are a subscriber or are from a subscribing organisation, please log in to gain full access. To explore options for subscribing to this unique teaching, research, and publishing resource for Australian culture and storytelling, please contact us or find out more.
Latest Issues
AbstractHistoryArchive Description
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). Source: http://www.textjournal.com.au/april09/nelson.htm
Publication Details of Only Known VersionEarliest 2 Known Versions of
Last amended 16 Jul 2009 14:54:30
http://nla.gov.au/nla.arc-10069-20090715-0000-www.textjournal.com.au/april09/nelson.html
Best Practice? The Problem of Peer Reviewed Creative Practice Research
TEXT : The Journal of the Australian Association of Writing Programs
TEXT : The Journal of the Australian Association of Writing Programs
Export this record
