<\/p>\n
Summary Paul Thomas<\/span><\/p>\n A summary of the discussion is generated from a number of interesting ideas around new modalities of publishing from the Leonardo 50<\/span>th<\/span> year Australian celebration session. A central theme of the discussion was based on the issue of expanding the role of visual language within the peer review system. There was a perceived need for Leonardo to establish a benchmark for standards of peer reviewing to communicate new standards that reflect artistic methodologies. With Leonardo’s desire to expand into new areas of publishing it should endeavor to see the privileging of written language over the visual language as being problematic. This would include exhibitions, artist\u2019s presentations and online presentations and podcasts. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span>An outcome would be if Leonardo tried to define what peer review processes in art and science for non-traditional research outputs look like globally.<\/span><\/p>\n The humanities struggle with publishing negative results that might well appear in the online science journals. The longevity of Leonardo is vitally important as it facilitates and democratises an expanded culture by adopting different new publication models and promoting practice-led research groups. Leonardo helps with status and it should see its longevity as a resource in a multitude of different ways.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Notes from discussion<\/span><\/p>\n Provocations:<\/b><\/p>\n Roger Malina<\/strong><\/p>\n