 |
 |
As I have been reviewing for a lot of conferences lately, interesting questions have arisen regarding the role of the double-blind peer reviewed conference proceedings paper versus the "paper" presentation versus the double-blind peer reviewed journal article: How is the paper (ex. requested to be 5000 words) distinguished from a peer review journal article in style and content? This specifically relates to the burden of including citations and referencing, exhaustive literature reviews. When reviewing a paper, how does one distinguish between evaluating it as a paper versus evaluating it as a potential presentation, especially since any presentation would be a severe truncation of the paper at about 2000 words? If journal articles require original contributions and conference proceedings require original contributions (or significant revisions of previous papers) and one can write only about 2-3 significant articles per year, how does one balance the engagement with community through conferences and engagement with journals? If conference proceeding papers are supposed to lead to journal articles, then why are they peer-reviewed if the idea is that you get community feedback from the conference to further develop your paper for a journal. The American Anthropological Association works under that assumption, so its conference papers are not peer reviewed. Sincerely bewildered, Dori