Quote: "It's usually not a list of peer-reviewers, but of advisors who
funnel the work of others to the journal."
Mark, that is even more of a concern, as impartiality will be threatened.
So, given this funnelling by these advisors who are also the peer-
reviewers, how much credibility can we now give this venture?
This could lead to yet another clique forming within the non-mainstream
arena.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:23:24 -0400, Mark Weiss
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>It's usually not a list of peer-reviewers, but of advisors who funnel
>the work of others to the journal.
>
>At 11:14 AM 10/21/2009, you wrote:
>>When you say:
>>
>>"The people on the editorial board by the way are basically there as
>>peer-reviewers"
>>
>>This means that anonymity will be taken out of the peer-review
process-
>>-this can't be a good thing surely? For peer review to work properly
one
>>shouldn't know who is likely to be vetting their contributions. It could
>>lead to people being unwilling to submit work, which would
detrimental
>>to the aims of the journal.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:31:39 +0100, Elizabeth James
>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >Quite. Consider the possibility that academic discourse might
actually
>>be as
>> >interesting and rewarding, intellectually / creatively, as poetry
(reading
>> >or writing); and then getting to be allowed to apply that mind, in
work
>> >time, to the exciting, difficult and intelligent poetry you already
love in
>> >the evenings ... To me it looks like a coup, rather than a defence.
>> >
>> >The proclaimed inclusion of 'poetics' will complicate that argument,
>> >admittedly.
>> >
>> >The people on the editorial board by the way are basically there as
>> >peer-reviewers, and do'nt run the journal. Well that's how it is for
me
>> >anyway. I am proud to be among them, furry hoodies and Latin
graces
>> >notwithstanding ...
>> >e
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "Alison Croggon" <[log in to unmask]>
>> >
>> >Gosh. That seems fairly sweeping. What if, rather than stemming
from
>> >"insecurity", it's simply that it's interesting and stimulating to
>> >think in a disciplined way about practice? (Sorry, praxis...) I
>> >certainly find such things interesting to read. And I just don't get
>> >this idea that journals of whatever stripe ought to be wholly
without
>> >agendas, since I don't understand how that would be at all
desirable
>> >or interesting - surely it would just mean beige all round? I And
>> >don't we all, as Borges pointed out, make our own canons?
>> >
>> >xA
>
>Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry (University
>of California Press).
>Forthcoming in November 2009.
>http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
|