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
|