In reference to Simon Batterbury's request for more details on the response
in USA to the proposed merger of the AAAG and the Professional Geographer,
here is the position posted by the editors of the later.

>*** Copy of message ***

RESPONSE FROM THE JOURNAL EDITORS of THE PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHER--(
Forwarded from Histgeog)

I (S. Aitken) am glad to see some kind of public discussion of the Annals/PG
merger proposed by Will Graf and endorsed by Council. JP Jones, Janet
Franklin and I (the current editors of those journals) were not party to
discussions of the
merger, nor were we invited to participate in the decision making.
The merger of the PG/Annals was presented to us as a fait accompli after AAG
Council met at the end of September. We asked Will Graf for a copy of his
"white paper" on the journals prior to the Council meeting but was refused.
Will invited me to the Council meeting (which took place during
the APCG meetings in Flagstaff) to make a short presentation on “the current
success of the PG.” I was NOT invited to stay and be part of the
deliberations on the white paper.
We put together the following points which we intend refining for the AAG
Newletter in February. I think it is appropriate that you see them now:

1. We were not party to this decision and we do not endorse it.
2. We do not believe it is in the best interest of any professional society
to reduce the number of journals it publishes. At this time, we believe the
association should be thinking of expanding the journals.
3. The decision was made on partial or incorrect information (for example,
there is no evidence that combining the journals will save the association
money).
4. We feel that the membership should have some say in such an important
decision. IF the membership thinks there are serious structural problems with
the journals, the whole membership (not a 20% sample) should be involved in
defining those problems and a solution.
5. If Council is unhappy with the job that we are doing then they should
ask us to resign. Combining the journals is not an appropriate solution to the
issues raised. We have been told that this decision is not about our
editorship and
editorial policies.
6. Combining the journals could be especially harmful to the PG which,
after 50 years, would in all likelihood simply be "absorbed" by the
flagship Annals.
This is a waste of a credible place in academic publishing (and library
subscriptions and so forth) earned over 50 years.
7. We are concerned that there does not seem to be plan for implementing the
proposed changes and yet they will happen by the end of our terms as editors
(1999 for the Annals and 2000 for the PG). We question the wisdom of merging
the journals, changing the format, relocating the management (to Washington
DC)
and installing new editors in such a short period.
8. The journals seem to be doing quite well. For example, the PG received
nearly 180 submissions to date for 1998 as far as I know, this is the
greatest number of submissions ever. The PG will be increased by 50-80
pages in
1999 toaccommodate the influx of submissions and we think that the journal
could
probably expand to 6 issues in the not too distant future.
9. We urge the membership to email Will Graf, the Councilors, and ask for
more information, express their wishes for the association’s journals (but to
carefully distinguish between their satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the
Editorial policy, content, and their support of the proposed solution).

Sincerely
Stuart C. Aitken
Janet Franklin
Co-Editors, The Professional Geographer






At 21:15 01/12/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Probably scaremongering. Look at the current editorial board of the Annals
>- would they support this proposal? Unlikely.
>
>AAG Presidents have one year appointments, but the Annals has been around
>an awfully long time. The debate emerges because Graf's view (expressed in
>the AAG Newsletter editorial, last issue) is that physical geographers
>should stop whining so much and try to integrate more with colleagues from
>other branches of the discipline. Presently they are alienated from even
>their own colleagues by attachment to positivist methods and
>hypothetico-deductive (?) reasoning. Creating an organ for mutual
>exchange and publication to occur in, follows logically from this train of
>thought. But remember Will is married to Pat Gober, the previous AAG Chair
>and an (excellent) human geographer, and I somehow doubt a radical
>overhaul will be on the cards. I am prepared to be corrected.
>
>It is extremely hard to get a paper in the Annals at present, with at
>least four referees involved, plus referees for the graphics quality as
>well. It can take months to prepare a manuscript that is good enough.
>Many give up or never even try. If physical or human geographers make it
>this far, their work is of high standard and deserves to be published. The
>fact that there have been a few papers in the AAAG recently about critical
>realism and discourse is scarcely grounds for concern, I would have
>thought. But is it an elite journal? Yes, by virtue of having high
>standards, I suppose.
>
>This raises a more general issue for discussion, however. Why is there, in
>North America, a feeling that Brits are the major players in 'social
>theory' geography, and is this defensible? Is this a form of
>cultural racism, or a justified assertion based on an analysis of who the
>top authors are in the field (and how many attended UK institutions in
>the past, particularly Cambridge...?) . Interesting to hear views. The
>incredulity with which sessions at the AAG organised by panels of young
>British human geographers are discussed, certainly seems to indicate a
>cultural dissonance somewhere. WHich, as someone with a foot very firmly
>on both continents (and in Africa), I find interesting and a also rather
>funny example of how preaching tolerance in 'society as a whole' sometimes
>stop short of tolerating the views of our peers. WHich goes on on both
>sides of the pond.
>
>Simon
>
>
>
>On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:47:48 +0000 Denis Linehan <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>> Controversy over Plans to merge the Annals of the Association of American
>> Geographers and The Professional Geographer, notably as it seems to be
>> excluding geographers you have "gone to far" with social theory seems to be
>> growing...
>>
>>
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%