Keep in mind that this is pure speculation! What you suggest is a possibility. Consider this, articles would perculate up based on a combined rating. Less scholarly articles would move downward. In dealing with young scholars I have seen good ideas get totally rejected based on criteria other than the idea. Badly presented ideas can be generative for research. It could also provide learning opportunities that a rejection letter doesn't give. Disc-drive space is very cheap. Of course a system like this presents a level playing field and may challenge the meritocracy of tradition systems. i.e the old boy system may take offense. James Christian Nelson <xianknelson@mac.com> wrote: Interesting idea, but where would editing fit into the process? Do raw manuscripts get rated, then edited, and then posted to the official journal? On Apr 25, 2007, at 10:34 AM, James Whyte wrote:

The issue of peer review could be eliminated by peer rating (all readers)

James

John Postill wrote: ------ Original Message ------ Received: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:54:32 AM BST From: "John Postill" To: "Maximilian C. Forte" ,

Subject: [Medianthro] Trouble with journals

Max Forte wrote:

...

I am also a very passionate proponent of open access publishing, and in that vein I am the editor of a specialized, peer reviewed journal titled, KACIKE: The Journal of Caribbean Amerindian History and Anthropology (at www.kacike.org), which has encountered absolutely *none* of the problems that opponents of open access journals normally list.

I'm glad Max has brought up the subject of journals as I've been discussing this issue with colleagues recently and it seems to me (and others) that something's seriously wrong with how the system works. I've experienced firsthand and heard stories of journal submissions where one is kept waiting anything between 12 and 24 months before hearing any substantial news, and that's after having chased this up with the journal a number of times. At the same time, authors are not allowed to submit the same piece to another journal, so often at the end of a very long wait a rejection comes and they're back to square one having wasted precious months.

It's clear that people are busy and that peer reviews take time, but should we really have to wait 12-15 months, or even longer, for a response? Perhaps journals should commit themselves to a reasonable waiting period (say, max 4 months) and publish figures of the time it takes them on average to get back to prospective contributors? Or perhaps contributors themselves should publish or circulate these figures in the public domain?

Any thoughts on this?

******************************************

EASA Media Anthropology Network http://www.media-anthropology.net

For further information please contact: Dr John Postill Sheffield Hallam University, UK jpostill@usa.net

To manage your subscription to this mailing list, visit:

http://lists.easaonline.org/listinfo.cgi/medianthro-easaonline.org

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

--------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

Again, pure speculation. I seems to me it would eliminate such behavior because the rating and comments would be retained and the criticisms themselves would be subject to falsification. IMHO Let's not forget that the current system was developed in the absence of Netspace and computers and before there were 22,000 journals in every subject. Also, objections to a system like this could be the same argument against wikipedia. I'm not suggesting that edit, reviewing and improving be dicontinued rather improved by a wider audience. James Christian Nelson <xianknelson@mac.com> wrote: I've seen, heard about and personally experienced a lot of BS under the current review system. Indeed, I just served as a reviewer for a paper that took on a theory developed by two members of the old boys network in the communication field. Despite the fact that it was a very good paper, and received thumbs up from two reviewers, it was rejected because it got thumbs down from the other two reviewers, both of whom were clearly the old boys whose theory was being skewered. But would your system change that? Under your system, these two old boys would simply have to sick all of their rabid former advisees on the poor author, drive his ratings into the ground, and then claim that the masses had spoken. There might be other reasons to promote your system, but avoiding the effects of the old boy network isn't one of them as far as I can tell. --Christian Nelson --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

All, The "purpose" of journal publication is seeming more closely tied to job acquisition, retention, and promotion than sharing knowledge. Changing the system (in IMO we need to radically revise it) is quite a challenge when there are still significant numbers of scholars who think that an online journal is not as prestigious as a paper one simply because it is online (this is regardless of peer review, rejection rates, readership, or who is on the editorial board). In fact, I remember during our discussion of an potential AoIR publication at the 2003 Brighton conference several people expressed the opinion that anything we did would have to be physically published to be taken "seriously." If I may toss my own bomb out there, I believe that several things need to happen to keep our work relevant and more accessible in an information rich world. 1. Take the money out of it. Get rid of the publishers and associations that make bank off our writing and editorial work. Go online and make it free and accessible to everyone. Then maybe someone will read it! 2. Adopt a (mostly) open review system, although I think it should be restricted to editorial board members and ad hoc reviewers with expertise in that area and be blind. Lay out the process as it develops. I like the idea of a signed review, and often you can tell who the writer is, but personalities and politics are a reality. 3. Allows readers who register to add comments along side an article to stimulate interactivity and allow authors to add new insights or data as it becomes available. You might also allow a rating system on usefulness, innovation, or other criteria. Thoughts? -TED Ted M. Coopman Department of Communication University of Washington On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Alex Halavais wrote:

On 4/25/07, James Whyte <whyte.james@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

What you suggest is a possibility. Consider this, articles would perculate up based on a combined rating. Less scholarly articles would move downward.

This was largely the model that Plastic and Kuro5hin were built on. There are certainly possibilities there. Clearly, two years to publication and distribution limited to campuses that can afford the licenses is a problem.

However, sometimes friction is good. An established editor who can locate experts provides a much more informed and limited set of feedback than self-appointed arbiters. Having written for Wikipedia and in other peer-editing contexts, I know that it does not always improve clarity. I would far prefer to have the feedback of three experts than of thirty non-experts.

That said, I would most prefer to have both. I think there are some interesting examples of pre-acceptance review, and post-acceptance revisions. Blogging allows for the publication of early drafts, as do other formalized venues for manuscript review. I think Douglas Rushkoff's novel, which allowed for footnoting by interested readers before publication, was a good stab in this direction. On the post-pub side, Lessig's Code 2.0 provides a neat example, as does (for those of you who have not already seen it) Kathleen Fitzpatrick's paper on Scholarly Publishing in the Age of the Internet, which aside from being a good read also provides the opportunity for post-publication comment:

http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/scholarlypublishing/

(Similar approaches have shown up in lots of other web publications of scholarly work.)

So, the current publication structures need to be improved, and open access publishing and pre- and post- archiving solutions should be sought out. There is nothing magical about the peer review system, and it's certainly worth finding out how other approaches work. Encouraging folks to engage in such experiments may, however, be almost as difficult as getting them to participate in medical trials--unless you are dying, there is a strong encouragement to stay with what works (if only imperfectly).

- Alex

-- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net // _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

Jeremy, I think you may wish to read my last post (if you are interested) a little closer. A vast majority of those who contribute, edit, and review for journals never see a dime. There obviously is money to made in journals for publishers, as I don't think they are doing it out of a sense of civic responsibility. I'm sure there are some journals out there who pay for assistants to help editors. Since you invoke anecdotal evidence, mine is that editors are lucky to just get release time and use their RAs as labor, so the department, not the journals, pay. I guess we would have to wait on some actual data to judge impacts on grad assistantships. As far as reviewers go, you stated: "thus taking out the level of professionalizing most people put into their review by setting the standard of amateur reviews" When I clearly stated: "I think it should be restricted to editorial board members and ad hoc reviewers with expertise in that area and be blind..." Perhaps you were confused by the ad hoc reviewer comment? Most journals farm out reviews to ad hoc reviewers with relevant expertise that are not on the editorial review board. Actually, a lot of articles are reviewed this way. It does not mean they are "amateurs," just not on the ERB. If you read carefully, the reviewers in the proposed system are the same, it is the process that is different. You conclude: "but i think the rest indicates a deep denial of the way the system works and who benefits." Hmm, I don't see a particularly deep understanding on your end (perhaps my denial?). However, I'm not so much in denial that I would not appreciate you enlightening me and the other list members with your expert analysis of the journal publication system and who benefits from it. -TED Ted M. Coopman Department of Communication University of Washington On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:

On Apr 25, 2007, at 5:01 PM, Ted M Coopman wrote:

...

All,

The "purpose" of journal publication is seeming more closely tied to job acquisition, retention, and promotion than sharing knowledge. Changing the system (in IMO we need to radically revise it) is quite a challenge when there are still significant numbers of scholars who think that an online journal is not as prestigious as a paper one simply because it is online (this is regardless of peer review, rejection rates, readership, or who is on the editorial board). In fact, I remember during our discussion of an potential AoIR publication at the 2003 Brighton conference several people expressed the opinion that anything we did would have to be physically published to be taken "seriously."

If I may toss my own bomb out there, I believe that several things need to happen to keep our work relevant and more accessible in an information rich world.

1. Take the money out of it. Get rid of the publishers and associations that make bank off our writing and editorial work. Go online and make it free and accessible to everyone. Then maybe someone will read it!

and thus cut funding to around 10 graduate students that are friends and colleagues, who make their money from the journal

...

2. Adopt a (mostly) open review system, although I think it should be restricted to editorial board members and ad hoc reviewers with expertise in that area and be blind. Lay out the process as it develops. I like the idea of a signed review, and often you can tell who the writer is, but personalities and politics are a reality.

thus taking out the level of professionalizing most people put into their review by setting the standard of amateur reviews

...

3. Allows readers who register to add comments along side an article to stimulate interactivity and allow authors to add new insights or data as it becomes available. You might also allow a rating system on usefulness, innovation, or other criteria.

yeah, i can see this one, for online journals.

...

Thoughts?

but i think the rest indicates a deep denial of the way the system works and who benefits.

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

I think paper versus bytes is all about being change resistant. It is like that old joke: "How many full professors does it take to change a light bulb?" The answer: CHANGE?!! Credit to Phil Howard, apologies to full professors, but I think you get my drift. Change does not come easily for most people and ceratinly for large institutions. You bring up an interesting idea (elijah touched on this as well) about volunteer labor, paid labor, and who benefits. The whole system is an interesting gift and profit economy confluence. The intersection between largely public institutions, mostly unpaid labor, and for profit corporations. A question might be, how would we change the equation on who profits? Or perhaps how it gets distributed? -TED Ted M. Coopman Department of Communication University of Washington On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:

On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:01 PM, Ted M Coopman wrote:

...

Jeremy,

I think you may wish to read my last post (if you are interested) a little closer.

A vast majority of those who contribute, edit, and review for journals never see a dime. There obviously is money to made in journals for publishers, as I don't think they are doing it out of a sense of civic responsibility. I'm sure there are some journals out there who pay for assistants to help editors. Since you invoke anecdotal evidence, mine is that editors are lucky to just get release time and use their RAs as labor, so the department, not the journals, pay.

yes, i was talking about the ones that do see a dime. I have no problems with departments paying for journal labor, being managing editor is valuable experience.

...

I guess we would have to wait on some actual data to judge impacts on grad assistantships.

I was just speaking of those that I know. They are my friends and under your scheme, they would not have had those jobs. it is fine to be abstract, but at a certain point, a professor is trying to justify paying a student, journals perform the function of justification.

...

As far as reviewers go, you stated: "thus taking out the level of professionalizing most people put into their review by setting the standard of amateur reviews"

When I clearly stated: "I think it should be restricted to editorial board members and ad hoc reviewers with expertise in that area and be blind..."

yes, and then you go on.... but I think you mistake the purpose of the editorial board. the editorial board is not the review board at all. the editorial board exists to generate submissions, and quality content, not to review texts.

...

Perhaps you were confused by the ad hoc reviewer comment? Most journals farm out reviews to ad hoc reviewers with relevant expertise that are not on the editorial review board. Actually, a lot of articles are reviewed this way. It does not mean they are "amateurs," just not on the ERB. If you read carefully, the reviewers in the proposed system are the same, it is the process that is different.

You conclude: "but i think the rest indicates a deep denial of the way the system works and who benefits."

Hmm, I don't see a particularly deep understanding on your end (perhaps my denial?). However, I'm not so much in denial that I would not appreciate you enlightening me and the other list members with your expert analysis of the journal publication system and who benefits from it.

Well granted, it perhaps does not benefit you, but I suspect it is a matter of time, and if not time then ideology. it benefits many people in aoir, and many people around the world. It is a particular system of profits and redistribution of wealth. that is granted.

My understand of it is from the basis of paid labor and volunteer labor. I have to say paid labor is much preferred.

There are many different mechanisms through which journal distribute wealth, i think that before one assume profiteering, or other negative values, that the various possibilities need to be considered.

It is likely true that if aoir starts a virtual journal, it will gain slightly less respect than first monday, but should it start a print journal, it would likely garner more respect than that esteemed publication. The thing is though that only print journals get into isi, and while scopus and other second tier ranking systems exist, they don't command the same respect. paper is king, why?

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

Jeremy Hunsinger wrote: At the risk of entering what appears to be the beginnings of a serious difference of opinions, I wanted to comment on one point that Jeremy makes:

yes, and then you go on.... but I think you mistake the purpose of the editorial board. the editorial board is not the review board at all. the editorial board exists to generate submissions, and quality content, not to review texts.

I think this is dependent upon the journal. I know our editorial board serves as the reviewers who ensure quality content, and not as generators of submissions (we do sometimes publish works produced by our editorial board of course, and in that case they do generate quality content). But for relatively visible journals, there is no lack of submissions (although the quality does vary). In other words, local conditions and disciplinary needs tend to dictate the actual work of journal production (this includes whether graduate students are funded for the work and how peer-review is carried out). So both understandings of what an editorial board is and does are likely correct, but in different contexts. (On a side note, related to funding and opportunities for graduate students, Kairos was started by graduate students and has slowly shifted to being run primarily by folks who are no longer graduate students--albeit engaged in a wide variety of work, not just tenure-track faculty--and we are now working to once again provide more opportunities to graduate students to join our team in different roles). [snip]

My understand of it is from the basis of paid labor and volunteer labor. I have to say paid labor is much preferred.

Okay I lied -- I want to comment on this part too. Yes, paid labor is preferred, but the economics of production (particularly in academia) would need to significantly change to make this work on a large scale. Most of the knowledge produced by scholars is certainly labor but it is often unpaid (in direct monetary form). However, particularly in academia, social capital can be accrued through volunteer labor, and sometimes that is a better incentive than money by itself (this is not to say that money isn't an incentive of course -- I do work-for-hire stuff for publishers when I can, but I also do a lot of my work for Kairos--unpaid/volunteer work--because it leads to greater value for me as a member of a particular field).

It is likely true that if aoir starts a virtual journal, it will gain slightly less respect than first monday, but should it start a print journal, it would likely garner more respect than that esteemed publication. The thing is though that only print journals get into isi, and while scopus and other second tier ranking systems exist, they don't command the same respect. paper is king, why?

This is an excellent question. At an educational technology conference where the journal editors were concerned with figuring out how to get their journals in to ISI so they'd have an impact factor, I suggested that they come up with alternate forms of judging impact and work to make those accepted in their fields, rather than trying to buy into a system that is already stacked against them (these were mostly print journals). In terms of the scenario you list above, *I* would view an AoIR journal in print or virtual as having value based on what it publishes and how that work is used (and I mean this very broadly -- not just in terms of formal citation). If the journal is good, I wouldn't see it as more or less respect-worthy than First Monday because in a way, that would be comparing apples and oranges and because there is no reason each couldn't be equally respected. The task at hand, then, becomes, how do we get *institutions* to understand value in this broader sense? Doug

Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:

...

I think this is dependent upon the journal. I know our editorial board serves as the reviewers who ensure quality content, and not as generators of submissions (we do sometimes publish works produced by our editorial board of course, and in that case they do generate quality content). But for relatively visible journals, there is no lack of submissions (although the quality does vary).

the board of editor's role varies, but i don't see them as first line reviewers, but yes everyone can do their own thing. I tend to think that they pull in submissions and they set the field. they don't necessarily submit things, they get their friends and colleagues to submit things. it is a social network function.

I agree that there *is* a social network function, but the editorial boards in the humanities journals that I'm familiar with do more of the reviewing and mentoring work than the "setting the field" and "pulling in submissions" work -- I suspect the difference in our views is basically disciplinary though.

...

...

My understand of it is from the basis of paid labor and volunteer labor. I have to say paid labor is much preferred.

...

Okay I lied -- I want to comment on this part too. Yes, paid labor is preferred, but the economics of production (particularly in academia) would need to significantly change to make this work on a large scale. Most of the knowledge produced by scholars is certainly labor but it is often unpaid (in direct monetary form)

what is the solution to this then? is it to have yet one more journal, or perhaps it is to close many journals?

I would prefer to see more (online) journals and I would like to see institutional investment in them (such as AoIR starting an online journal). I don't think it's necessary to close any journals because if they are sustainable ventures -- whether engaging material capital or social/academic capital -- there's no freeing of resources that could be used elsewhere. Now, if your argument is that no journals should use unpaid labor at all, then a good number of journals wouldn't exist (no one at Kairos gets paid (monetarily) for the work of putting the journal together -- and it's a heck of a lot of work, from submission, review, revision, copy and code editing and making it all work within the journal's framework, then publicizing...it's intensive enough work that we only publish two issues per year).

...

. However, particularly in academia, social capital can be accrued through volunteer labor, and sometimes that is a better incentive than money by itself (this is not to say that money isn't an incentive of course -- I do work-for-hire stuff for publishers when I can, but I also do a lot of my work for Kairos--unpaid/volunteer work--because it leads to greater value for me as a member of a particular field).

I agree.... but this varies also. I actually tend to think of kairos only as a blog, though there is a journal, but the labor here is really what you construct.

Hmmm...KairosNews (http://www.kairosnews.org) is a kind of collaborative blog -- we started that venture because publishing "news" in a bi-annual publication didn't seem to fit with our goal of engaging the medium as fully as possible for scholarly work. Kairos: Rhetoric, Technology, Pedagogy, on the other hand, is a fully peer-reviewed online journal that publishes scholarship, interviews, and reviews. And this is an important distinction for T&P of course -- if tenure review committees can't tell the difference between Kairos and KairosNews (which is separate from but related to the journal), then we'll need to think about how to make the distinctions clearer...

...

...

It is likely true that if aoir starts a virtual journal, it will gain slightly less respect than first monday, but should it start a print journal, it would likely garner more respect than that esteemed publication. The thing is though that only print journals get into isi, and while scopus and other second tier ranking systems exist, they don't command the same respect. paper is king, why? This is an excellent question. At an educational technology conference where the journal editors were concerned with figuring out how to get their journals in to ISI so they'd have an impact factor, I suggested that they come up with alternate forms of judging impact and work to make those accepted in their fields, rather than trying to buy into a system that is already stacked against them (these were mostly print journals).

...

The task at hand, then, becomes, how do we get *institutions* to understand value in this broader sense?

You do and you don't, this varies across institutions and disciplines. in 10 years you'll see some shift perhaps, maybe more shift in 15. You can try to make policies, but we know how that works, you make a policy today and you get a new dept head tomorrow, or new committee next year. there tends to be a back and forth and in my mind it is less about inclusion than exclusion when the arguments are made. to me then 'institutions' don't understand, individuals and occasionally disciplines might have an understanding, but we have to be careful about saying that x institution understands the value in any sense, because frequently they do not.

I think that we can push that shift you mention -- we've got a working group in the field of computers and writing that is trying to develop methods that can highlight the value of electronic publication and new media scholarship for the institutions that judge us (in terms of tenure and promotion, primarily). In this case, it's a field that is working to influence how institutions understand our work, and I think that this has some transformative potential that work at individual departments can take advantage of (in other words, the work of explicating value should certainly be done at both local and global levels, but both arenas really need to be engaged).

I think Ted is right in saying that journals matter for one primary issue, and that is tenure, but really, in the case of tenure is content king? or is reputation king? and to what extent are they related. there are bibliometrics already, i'm not sure they show that quality matters, but it depends on your definitions.

I think that journals also matter for getting a job in the first place or getting a new one, and also, as Barry noted, as carriers of work in which scholars have invested their intellectual energy and curiousity. I like Elijah's take on journals as part of the larger activity of a discipline, so I think focusing only on tenure and promotion misses some of the other reasons that journals work for a field and the ways in which this work should not necessarily be evaluated and equated with traditional capitalist labor economics. I do agree that bibliometrics don't directly reference quality and that we need better assessment methods (and of course, even employing bibliometrics becomes more difficult if online journals aren't in the citation databases...)

if we start from the assumption of a 'good' journal, i think we start falsely. i think we should start thinking about where you would not recommend a junior faculty publish their work, discourage that first, then get them to aim higher. i mean publish whatever you can, but there has to be some care, no? isn't there judgement in relation to quality that faculty need to consider?

Well, sure -- but I'm hoping that our work on Kairos has made it one of the recommended places to publish (even though it is an online journal) rather than one the junior faculty are discouraged from submitting to. But isn't that judgment and advice based on a general consensus of whether a journal is 'good' or not? Doug

Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:

...

\ I would prefer to see more (online) journals and I would like to see institutional investment in them (such as AoIR starting an online journal).

I used to think this would be the way to go. Now, I don't. There are tons of online journals that cover the material aoir would offer, and there seems to be a new one every week. Some are good, some I can't judge. One more online journal, even association related, is just online journal and well, I don't think many online journals are 'flourishing', but then neither

It does seem to be the case that many online journals don't last all that long -- so we end up with a few strong ones but not very many. The task at hand though (at least for me), is to create more strong ones.

...

Now, if your argument is that no journals should use unpaid labor at all, then a good number of journals wouldn't exist (no one at Kairos gets paid (monetarily) for the work of putting the journal together -- and it's a heck of a lot of work, from submission, review, revision, copy and code editing and making it all work within the journal's framework, then publicizing...it's intensive enough work that we only publish two issues per year).

In what sense is that sustainable?

In the sense that we've been publishing 2-3 issues per year for over a decade; we have a low acceptance rate; we have a significant (international) readership; and it has become far easier to argue that an article in Kairos should count the same as an article in a top-tier print journal in our field. Also in the sense that it isn't the project of just one person -- we have a distributed editorial team that is invested in the success of the journal ... so if I decide not to be an editor at some point, the journal won't go away because of that decision (although that was almost what happened in 1999, which is one of the reasons we've worked hard to develop the journal as a sustainable venture).

Well clearly, kairos the journal goes on the vita, whereas the news does not. but I have to imagine that arguments are made for many promotion and tenure committees still about this issue.

In the past this has been true, but at least in my field I've been hearing more reports of tenure committees accepting the work published in Kairos as equivalent to print works in the top tier journals in our field. Over the past ten years, I've written many letters explaining the value of the journal (and its readership, peer-review process, and acceptance rate) for authors who were going up for T&P, and to my knowledge those were all successful missives.

...

I think that we can push that shift you mention -- we've got a working group in the field of computers and writing that is trying to develop methods that can highlight the value of electronic publication and new media scholarship for the institutions that judge us (in terms of tenure and promotion, primarily). In this case, it's a field that is working to influence how institutions understand our work, and I think that this has some transformative potential that work at individual departments can take advantage of (in other words, the work of explicating value should certainly be done at both local and global levels, but both arenas really need to be engaged).

Yes, I was working on that at the cddc now the future of the book institute is working on it too with kathleen and the mediacommons project. when we institutionalize the push toward change outside of the system that needs changed, i think it causes reactionary effects in the long run. I've heard some great ideas about the possibility of change in journal publishing recently though, and perhaps if I take a job somewhere soon, I'll post some more of those issues and ideas

...

...

I think Ted is right in saying that journals matter for one primary issue, and that is tenure, but really, in the case of tenure is content king? or is reputation king? and to what extent are they related. there are bibliometrics already, i'm not sure they show that quality matters, but it depends on your definitions. I think that journals also matter for getting a job in the first place or getting a new one, and also, as Barry noted, as carriers of work in which scholars have invested their intellectual energy and curiousity.

I think this is 'true', but also becoming rapidly not true in the age of 'grinding it out'. Many factors seem to be coming together that encourage faculty to just publish and I am not sure that in the masses of information that is being published that we can make the claim toward investment in a strong way unless we account for the reasons for the investment as intervening variables.

Yeah, I've seen this too -- there's a push to publish more and more quickly, but I think that many of us do have an investment in the arguments and claims we are forwarding even in the, shall we say, less well-developed work that we might be forced to do.

Yes, I think the journal publishing for hiring is getting out of hand. I just talked to a student who said that they thought they needed 6 published peer reviewed articles to enter the market. I'm still convinced you need one really good one.

That sounds excessive to me, but I'm in a humanities field, so that might make a difference. Generally, I think one good peer-reviewed article and a few book reviews, as well as evidence of strong teaching and the ability work through sustained research projects are more than sufficient for my field (rhetoric and writing studies). Given that in my experience for both print and online venues, peer-reviewed works take about a year to end up getting in print, six articles to enter the market would mean that the student should be producing as many as possible as quickly as possible, which seems to put production too far ahead of learning.

The ever increasing requirements for hiring and promotion/tenure are to me partially related to the ballooning of publishing venues and the equivalence in far too many fields between publishing and research performance. Publishing performance is not research performance to me, but I think we have some real issues to deal with in order to rebuild the metrics to represent the difference.

I certainly agree with you here! (Although in the humanities at least, the number of publishing venues is decreasing, which is even more problematic). Doug

I have an idea. Since I'm a coder. You all give me the specs and I will build it. I even have a server and will host it. James --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

This we don't do -- not because it wouldn't be useful, but because in the past when we've tried to build in interactivity, it has failed. We looked at other online journals and found that most had the same experience, and we theorize that it is due to the fact that scholarly journals (even cutting edge online ones) evoke a specific genre that doesn't have the space for such interaction; the kind of interaction we

I am sitting here thinking about how I think about journals - I think of them as inherently participatory spaces, where part of your "dues" as an active member of the community is that you read/write article reviews for editors, participate by writing book reviews when they're needed, review conference panel submissions and/or conference papers when asked, et cetera. I don't think there's any really good reason to regard journals as "black boxes", given the number of avenues of participation that exist for even the most junior of us. There are several journal/zine/etc editors on this list; most of the ones that I've come in contact with are *delighted* to receive offers of free labor from ze community.

exigency and use of the journals is changes (and we are currently working on a redesign that will make these options available, but that's not ready yet).

I can't wait to see what you come up with. [I'm imagining something like a trac installation with journal articles inside... and, wow, that would be neat.]

So I certainly think there are interesting and useful ways to experiment with peer-review, and pre- and post-publication assessment (and perhaps revision). Kairos is working on one possible model, but I think that there are certainly others that are worth developing as well.

May a thousand flowers bloom! --elijah

...

I am sitting here thinking about how I think about journals - I think of them as inherently participatory spaces, where part of your "dues" as an active member of the community is that you read/write article reviews for editors, participate by writing book reviews when they're needed, review conference panel submissions and/or conference papers when asked, et cetera.

Elijah, I like the way you think about journals -- this is also how I think about them, but I find that many people who aren't as involved (in terms of editing, conference-presenting, research-writing) don't always get that (of course I come from a discipline that tends to focus more on pedagogy and less on research...and whose members are often teaching far more than they are researching).

Yes, there is a bit of a possible disconnect there that needs to be avoided. Having better mentors seems to help folks quite a lot. Being able to say that "I do these things out of respect for my colleagues and as a way to honor this area in which I work" is quite a bit different than saying "I do this because I need to publish an article and three book reviews to get a job". Joy is important in life. I for one have a hard time doing things for money. Service work that I would otherwise find gratifying is completely smothering and stultifying once the almighty dollar becomes involved. Even so, I think we all see the need for folks to eat.

...

There are several journal/zine/etc editors on this list; most of the ones that I've come in contact with are *delighted* to receive offers of free labor from ze community.

Absolutely! But we are, I should note (not that you implied otherwise, but still noteworthy) careful to make sure that this free labor ends up accruing some kind of value to the laborer, whether that's a cv line, experience with a particular kind of editing or production, or extended opportunities to network with senior scholars in the field.

Yes, I decided that if I didn't make the point someone would say it more clearly than I might have :) and you did!

...

...

exigency and use of the journals is changes

[Doug fires his typist...oh wait, this isn't a MOO]

But don't you wish it were? :) I miss scrabble with mday et al...

...

May a thousand flowers bloom!

Yes! And I think that is one of the ways that the value of online publications can grow -- develop and sustain good venues until they become part of the academic culture of each discipline they represent (or of several disciplines, in the case of interdisciplinary journals, which would be preferable, but I think our historical moment is currently privileging disciplinarity...hopefully that will begin to shift soon).

I think you're exactly right about disciplinarity being privileged, at least in the surface-level sense... in the deeper sense I think that many do see the reasons behind multi-/inter-/trans-disciplinarity and are willing to take advantage of those freedoms where they may.... --elijah

Jose makes a good point regarding peer comments. Sometimes my papers are unfairly rejected (IMHO~!) but over the course of my career I have received much more positive, useful feedback than cockamamie rejections. In fact sometimes I am overwhelmed at the care with which reviewers skewer my papers, all the better to make me make them better. On the previous point, journals should not take months for reviews. Conferences such as CHI and CSCW and journals such as CACM get reviews back quickly -- it's all a matter of expectations and culture. Many journals are very responsible - choose them ;) -- Bonnie On Apr 25, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Jose P. Zagal wrote:

However, you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. One of the benefits of the peer-review system is that many (if not most) articles that go through this process are improved thanks to thoughtful comments and suggestions from reviewers. While the current system may not be perfect, and your mileage will vary from journal to journal and editor to editor, we should recognize its strengths and think of alternate ways that can maintain those.

Jose Zagal

James Whyte wrote:

...

The issue of peer review could be eliminated by peer rating (all readers)

James

John Postill <jpostill@usa.net> wrote: ------ Original Message ------ Received: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:54:32 AM BST From: "John Postill" To: "Maximilian C. Forte" ,

Subject: [Medianthro] Trouble with journals

Max Forte wrote:

...

I am also a very passionate proponent of open access publishing, and in that

vein I am the

...

editor of a specialized, peer reviewed journal titled, KACIKE: The Journal

of Caribbean

...

Amerindian History and Anthropology (at www.kacike.org), which has

encountered absolutely

...

*none* of the problems that opponents of open access journals normally

list.

I'm glad Max has brought up the subject of journals as I've been discussing this issue with colleagues recently and it seems to me (and others) that something's seriously wrong with how the system works. I've experienced firsthand and heard stories of journal submissions where one is kept waiting anything between 12 and 24 months before hearing any substantial news, and that's after having chased this up with the journal a number of times. At the same time, authors are not allowed to submit the same piece to another journal, so often at the end of a very long wait a rejection comes and they're back to square one having wasted precious months.

It's clear that people are busy and that peer reviews take time, but should we really have to wait 12-15 months, or even longer, for a response? Perhaps journals should commit themselves to a reasonable waiting period (say, max 4 months) and publish figures of the time it takes them on average to get back to prospective contributors? Or perhaps contributors themselves should publish or circulate these figures in the public domain?

Any thoughts on this?

******************************************

EASA Media Anthropology Network http://www.media-anthropology.net

For further information please contact: Dr John Postill Sheffield Hallam University, UK jpostill@usa.net

To manage your subscription to this mailing list, visit:

http://lists.easaonline.org/listinfo.cgi/medianthro-easaonline.org

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

--------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

-- José Pablo Zagal PhD Candidate - Georgia Institute of Technology jp@cc.gatech.edu - http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~jp

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

Bonnie A. Nardi Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-3440 (949) 824-6534 www.artifex.org/~bonnie/