Me, I believe in journals as autocracies, but
it's probably good for the autocrats to have advisors.
At 06:50 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
>I’d like them to be submitted to the editor of the journal, who would
>then remove the writer’s name from the manuscript before passing it on
>to two independent reviewers who would not know who the article was
>written by, and who the author had no idea who was reviewing their
>work. This is standard procedure with academic journals.
>
>I’m not saying that this journal won’t comply with the first requirement—
>passing on the article with the name of the author removed—but the
>fact that we know who the likely reviewers will be makes the second
>part problematic.
>
>As I said before, I’m only going by what Elizabeth James has said about
>the editorial board doing the reviewing themselves. Maybe, she’s got it
>wrong, and they won’t be. We just don’t know at this stage.
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:53:31 -0400, Mark Weiss
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >How would you like to see articles selected?
> >
> >At 04:26 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
> >>No, I wasn't. I genuinely don't understand it. It was badly
>constructed.
> >>What is it specifically referring to in the comment I made? I can't
> >>answer if it is not clear, can I?
> >>
> >>
> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:42:45 -0400, Mark Weiss
> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sorry to hear that. Unless you're making a
> >> >punctuation pun. In which case I'm sorry to hear that.
> >> >
> >> >At 02:22 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
> >> >>I don't understand your question, Mark?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:54:47 -0400, Mark Weiss
> >> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Let's, for argument's sake, say that they are.
> >> >> >What other possibility would you envision? Do you
> >> >> >think the hands-on editor should in all cases be governed by
>the
> >> >>reviewers?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >At 01:45 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
> >> >> >>If the board is, as you say, for prestige only, then Elizabeth
> >>James,
> >> >>who
> >> >> >>is on this board, shouldn’t have said in an earlier post here
>that
> >>they
> >> >> >>would do peer-reviewing also. So any misunderstanding is
>due to
> >>her
> >> >> >>input in this matter.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Of course, I’m not saying a journal shouldn’t have an angle or
> >>biases,
> >> >> >>to credit me with that is building a straw man for me. My
>concern
> >>is
> >> >> >>that the journal may become elitist and exclusive, acting as a
> >>sort of
> >> >> >>arbiter of innovative poetic taste, in the same way that
>Poetry
> >> >>Review
> >> >> >>in the UK is an arbiter of taste for mainstream poetry.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>But I think the overriding issue is to find out if the editorial
>board
> >> >>will,
> >> >> >>indeed, be doing the peer-reviewing or not. I can’t see
>Elizabeth’s
> >> >> >>Freudian slip being insignificant, however.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:16:57 -0400, Mark Weiss
> >> >> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Let's be real for a moment. All academic fields
> >> >> >> >are so small that only neophytes don't know most
> >> >> >> >of the players. I'm a non-academic, but I was
> >> >> >> >able to identify immediately two of the three
> >> >> >> >anonymous readers of my Cuban anthology
> >> >> >> >manuscript. It's also not unheard of for a member
> >> >> >> >of a peer-review committee to tell a friend or
> >> >> >> >student that he's on the committee and this would be a
>good
> >>time
> >> >>to
> >> >> >>submit.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >That said, contributing editors aren't a
> >> >> >> >peer-review committee. Their function is to lend
> >> >> >> >prestige by simply being listed (and many never
> >> >> >> >do anything beyond that for the publication) and
> >> >> >> >to keep their ears out for what they think is
> >> >> >> >interesting work, tho they are never the only
> >> >> >> >source the actual editors rely on.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >You seem to expect a degree of objectivity that
> >> >> >> >humans are rarely capable of. I'm not convinced
> >> >> >> >that it's even desirable in a journal. This one
> >> >> >> >will develop its own character. Let's see what that is
>before we
> >> >>jump
> >> >> >>on it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Mark
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >At 12:09 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
> >> >> >> >>My guess is that the honorifics are there on purpose.
>They are
> >> >> >>making a
> >> >> >> >>statement. They may be removed now that critical
>attention
> >>has
> >> >> >>been
> >> >> >> >>brought to them. But it's the lack of anonymity of the
>peer-
> >>review
> >> >> >>board
> >> >> >> >>that concerns me. Robert should have decided what was
>more
> >> >> >> >>important: the honorifics or the sanctity of the peer-
>review
> >> >>process.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:14:30 -0400, Mark Weiss
> >> >> >> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Black Mountain was hardly a formally organized
> >> >> >> >> >institution, particularly in its last few years,
> >> >> >> >> >when Olson was called in to oversee its demise.
> >> >> >> >> >There were at that point about a hundred
> >> >> >> >> >students. But it's the Black Mountain College we
> >> >> >> >> >remember as poets. Even in its rum days it
> >> >> >> >> >neither sought nor received accreditation.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >I'm acutely aware of the impact of the
> >> >> >> >> >academicization of poetry in the US. It's been an
> >> >> >> >> >unmitigated disaster. But that wasn't caused by
> >> >> >> >> >the existence of academic journals. Let's se what they
>turn
> >> >>out.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >The inclusion of titles in the board list is a
> >> >> >> >> >bit comic opera, but let's blame it on a
> >> >> >> >> >beginner's mis-step. We should wish the
> >> >> >> >> >enterprise well, and maybe in that spirit let the
> >> >> >> >> >editor know that he should drop the honorifics.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Mark
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >At 10:58 AM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>One of the big dangers is definitely the codification of
> >> >>practice,
> >> >> >>and
> >> >> >> >> >>I am with Jeff on this. This has happened to some
>extent
> >> >> >>with 'avant
> >> >> >> >> >>garde' poetry in the States and it has certainly
>happened
> >>to
> >> >>art
> >> >> >>here
> >> >> >> >> >>in the art colleges - they do not set good examples.
> >>Once the
> >> >> >> >>products
> >> >> >> >> >>of creativity get into that loop it is very difficult for
>them
> >>to
> >> >> >> >> >>disentangle. We all want good teachers and good
> >>teaching
> >> >>but
> >> >> >>all too
> >> >> >> >> >>often good teachers and good teaching get lost in the
> >> >>systems
> >> >> >>and
> >> >> >> >> >>bureaucracies with their other demands and agendas.
>The
> >> >>need
> >> >> >>to
> >> >> >> >>get a
> >> >> >> >> >>'qualification' or certain letters after your name has
>in the
> >> >>past
> >> >> >>not
> >> >> >> >> >>been the same as the need to create originally. You
>need
> >> >> >>freedom
> >> >> >> >>and
> >> >> >> >> >>focus. At times this has been given by creative people
> >>living
> >> >>and
> >> >> >> >> >>working together - the typical artistic group or milieu
>or
> >> >> >>movement.
> >> >> >> >> >>And sometimes of course in glorious isolation from
>any
> >>such
> >> >> >>thing.
> >> >> >> >> >>Cases of such things coming from formally organised
> >>higher
> >> >>ed
> >> >> >> >> >>institutions are rare - Black Mountain would be one of
> >>those
> >> >> >>rarities.
> >> >> >> >> >>I'm not being romantic about this, I think I am being
> >>realistic.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>Individuals, such as Robert Sheppard or whoever, are
> >>able to
> >> >> >>fight
> >> >> >> >> >>against codification, but systems and organisations
> >>cannot.
> >> >>Or at
> >> >> >> >> >>least, they cannot within the context of modern
>capitalist
> >> >>society.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>Tim A.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>On 22 Oct 2009, at 15:01, Jeffrey Side wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>Sean, I'm not against academic journals if they are
> >>about
> >> >>the
> >> >> >>study
> >> >> >> >>of
> >> >> >> >> >>>poetry rather than concentrating on how it should be
> >>written
> >> >> >>etc.
> >> >> >> >> >>>And I
> >> >> >> >> >>>get the feeling that this journal may lead to this,
>having
> >> >>read
> >> >> >>some
> >> >> >> >> >>>of
> >> >> >> >> >>>Robert‚s theories on practice. Only time will tell,
> >>however.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of
> >> >> >> >> >>Cuban Poetry (University of California Press).
> >> >> >> >> >>Forthcoming in November 2009.
> >> >> >> >> >>http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban
> >> >> >> >Poetry (University of California Press).
> >> >> >> >Forthcoming in November 2009.
> >> >> >> >http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban
> >> >> >Poetry (University of California Press).
> >> >> >Forthcoming in November 2009.
> >> >> >http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
> >> >
> >> >Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban
> >> >Poetry (University of California Press).
> >> >Forthcoming in November 2009.
> >> >http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
> >
> >Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban
> >Poetry (University of California Press).
> >Forthcoming in November 2009.
> >http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban
Poetry (University of California Press).
Forthcoming in November 2009.
http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
|