Post-publication Reviews, Peer Comments, and Discipline Formation in Art History.

Autor/in	Hönes, Hans C.
Titel	Post-publication Reviews, Peer Comments, and Discipline Formation in Art History.
Quelle	In: Minerva : a review of science, learning and policy, 63 (2025) 4, S. 731-746Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1573-1871
DOI	10.1007/s11024-025-09600-3
Schlagwörter	Kunstwissenschaft; Wissenschaft; Kunsthochschule
Abstract	The article analyses the role of post-publication reviewing (of books, but also of individual research articles) for the formation of art history as an academic discipline in the early 20th century. The article argues that post-publication reviews were regarded as a crucial medium for establishing a disciplinary community of art historians, thus giving a sense of identity and a forum for exchange to a group of scholars who often came to art history from heterogeneous academic backgrounds. Importantly, this article argues that art historical reviewing in the early 20th century was not a one-way street. Leading journals such as the Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft accommodated opportunities to respond to reviews, but also to other articles, thus creating a forum for exchange and debate. Far from being a tacit, barely reflected practice, the article shows that the need for open debate and peer-evaluation was promoted explicitly by leading art historians and journal editors. By highlighting historic practices of exchange, the article asks to what extent reviewing in early 20th century scholarship provided a system of post-publication 'peer feedback' - an idea akin to the notion of "open peer review" that is promoted today as remedy for the perceived shortcomings of blind peer review. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).
Erfasst von	Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, Bonn
Update	2026/3