In version 1.0 of "Where Do I List this on My CV?", I proposed three approaches for making self-published web sites count as scholarship for the purposes of tenure and promotion. There have been some new wrinkles in the way that scholars have attempted to publish and present their S/scholarship. As I mentioned in the section The Five Journals: Where are they now?, I think we will see a growing trend of scholars republishing at least some of their work on their own web sites, with or without the blessing of the traditional publishers. Also, as I noted in the New Examples section, I think we will also see a greater willingness on the part of academic publishers to find ways to simultaneously publish work in traditional print and electronically and, as is the case with Rice University Press, to review and publish academic work with the aid of on-demand printing.
But while new types of self- (and collaboratively-) published web sites have come on the scene in the last five years, I think the basic methods for counting most self-published web sites as scholarship I discussed in the original article more or less hold true today.
A peer review/vetting system for self-published work. The institutionalized system I suggested, the long-term solution based on Gary Olson's MLA presentation at the 2001 Modern Language Association Annual Convention, has yet to come to pass. But there is hope. For example, as Clancy Ratliff discussed at the 2007 Computers and Writing conference, MediaCommons (part of the Institute for the Future of the Book) holds the potential of being a model of a peer-to-peer review system. Perhaps a model like this might ultimately be adopted by MLA, NCTE, or Kairos, or else some other sanctioning body could become involved in this process and provide, as I wrote in 2002, their seal of approval for the process.
Appeal to the NCTE/CCCC Guidelines. The CCCC Position Statement on Promotion and Tenure Guidelines for Work with Technology is still a useful, albeit somewhat dated (the guidelines are at this writing in the process of being reviewed and revised) resource for providing tenure and promotion committees and candidates some guiding principles for considering this work. While I personally did not refer to this document in my own tenure case (and I don't think Lee Honeycutt or Daniel Anderson did either), I do think all three of us did ultimately follow these guidelines as I discuss briefly in the Making it Count: Four Examples, Five Years Later section of this article.
The Marshall Poe model. Ultimately, Poe's efforts at self-publishing and then self-promotion of that publication are what made his S/scholarly project matter, and it certainly helped his career, as I discuss in the section The Case of Marshall Poe.
In the end, I think version 2.0 of this article illustrates the ways in which scholarly publishing has struggled with retaining its traditions while adapting to rapid changes in publishing technologies and sensibilities. With web-based publishing, including self-published web sites, the guiding principles of academic S/scholarship are unchanged, but the ways in which writers re/present their scholarship will never be the same.