Jimmy, the board may be impartial towards me, but I can't see Robert 
passing any article by me to them. I would have to (now I know who 
they are) submit directly to them, bypassing Robert. 




On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:27:12 +0000, JIMMY CUMMINS 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>"I would obviously not have an article accepted 
by the journal, now, for speaking out on this matter." 
 
I think these are the kind of unfounded negative statements directed at 
the editors and the board that Sean is talking about. Why do just 
assume that the board, anonymous or not, would not accept an article 
from you just because you voiced some concerns? I would think that the 
editors and the board are adult enough not to hold such a meaningless 
grudge. 
Once you venture into these pointless personal comments all your other 
concerns and your argument becomes tainted and it is hard to have a 
concrete discussion on the issues you are raising.

Of the few of the board that I have met and know it seems unlikely 
that they have the time or the inclination to be concerned about you 
raising these issues. and some may well share some of your concerns 
about academicisation.

My copy arrived the other day and I look forward to finding the time to 
read it all. But from a first glance i am delighted to see that the "Irish" 
in the title is not just tagged on. In the first issue, at least, the journal 
seems to be giving over space to Irish poetics. Not just in the essay on 
Maggie O'Sullivan's work but also in the editorial, which is a thoughtful 
and concise over view for anyone who is coming across this sort of 
poetics for the first time. 

best
Jimmy
www.defaultpublishing.com
http://defaultpoetry.blogspot.com/
"DE-FAULT, the two best words in the English language"




________________________________
From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, 23 October, 2009 15:56:17
Subject: Re: Journal of British and Irish Innovative Poetry launch at 
Birkbeck (Weds 21st October 2009)

Kit, the question is only partly to do with the editorial board doing the 
reviewing, the other point is that they are not anonymous. This lack of 
anonymity would inhibit people from submitting if they had had sour 
dealings with one of the board in the past. In such a case, that person 
would not know if their article was being reviewed by that particular 
board member or not. Not a very comforting state of affairs. 

I mention this aspect, not because it applies to me (if anyone is 
thinking that), the editors on the board of this journal should not have 
anything against me from past dealings with them (they may now, but 
that is another matter). I would obviously not have an article accepted 
by the journal, now, for speaking out on this matter. 






On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:50:33 +0100, Kit Fryatt 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Independent scholars with a reputation in their field peer-review for
>academic journals, so you don't have to be affiliated to an institution 
to
>qualify. A poet with interests and publications in the appropriate areas
>would to my mind be a highly qualified peer-reviewer of an article on 
poetics.  
>
>As to the editorial board / peer reviewers thing, surely what matters is
>that on the level of individual reports readers are anonymised, not 
that the
>editorial board stands aloof from all reviewing.  I know if I was editing 
a
>journal such as this one I would not want to exclude the massed 
expertise
>represented by this editorial board from EVER reviewing for the 
journal, nor
>does there seem any reason to.  As someone who might be interested 
in
>submitting to the journal, I don't see how its reputation is at all
>compromised by my knowledge that my article might be read by one 
of the
>editorial board -- equally, it might be read by someone quite external -
- as
>long as the report is anonymous I'd have no way of knowing. Well, not 
for
>sure, anyway.  (I don't think I've ever had anything published without
>knowing pretty much who reviewed it, or being able to find out with 
two
>phone calls and an email or three -- the whole thing is not so much
>sanctified as a thoroughly leaky kettle.)