tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post4246467296104028694..comments2024-03-09T03:20:20.004-05:00Comments on Tenured Radical: Department of Responses and Cool Ideas: More From The World Of Academic PublishingTenured Radicalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-60708997588092663342010-09-01T10:35:24.667-05:002010-09-01T10:35:24.667-05:00If you aren't thoroughly exhausted by this sub...If you aren't thoroughly exhausted by this subject, you might want to peruse the August 31 post, "The 'Burden' of Peer Review" on <a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/" rel="nofollow"> Scholarly Kitchen blog</a>.<br /><br />Many of the technical issues that slowed down publication have been solved. Online manuscript submission and peer review tracking systems, automated composition (and excellent clean-up macros that format, fix, and link references), and subscription management systems all exist now. But they are not cheap. Lots of smaller journals aren't doing these things because they can't afford them.<br /><br />There are other issues with online-only. Libraries have had a hard time with concepts like archiving ("permanence"), integrating online collections, and managing multi-user access...again, new tools are resolving these problems...also not cheap.<br /><br />Tools, no matter how good, can't overcome human foibles. Maybe we should be grateful for that.GlassPennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-43053578087581629892010-08-31T15:26:41.897-05:002010-08-31T15:26:41.897-05:00As a person on the publishing side of the scholars...As a person on the publishing side of the scholarship business, I found both posts and all the comments interesting. We publish over 30 journal titles (over 220 issues per year), plus about 50 books/CDs, in a technical field...that's where I'm coming from.<br /><br />There are a bunch of new and improved tools that do help speed up the publishing process.<br />--A good online manuscript submission and peer review tracking system gets rid of postage costs and all those pesky "lost in the mail" complaints; it's web-based, so accessible from "anywhere"; all the reviewer and editor comments are stored in the system; it can even be rigged to send out electronic reminders to reviewers.<br />--Once a manuscript makes it to production, nothing beats a good clean-up macro. These days, these programs even format, correct, and link references.<br />--Posting PDFs of unedited manuscripts upon acceptance shortens the wait for new information. (Does create a bibliographic challenge, though.)<br /><br />None of the above comes cheap. And these days, my monthly online services bill is about 75% of the printing bill (peer review, copyediting, and composition required for either distribution channel). The tipping point has almost been reached for getting rid of print for many journals; several now only provide either a print-on-demand version or squeeze 2 composed pages onto one print page. I think a couple of things need to happen here: to justify print, there would need to be *more* design--more like a magazine (and that is expensive, and requires much better graphics), or the online versions need to be better designed for the online environment (not merely a replication or PDF of print). <br /><br />Tools do not completely make up for the foibles of the people who use them.<br />--Many authors are extremely careless about copyright and permissions issues, and oddly reluctant to clean these up promptly when they are pointed out. I am genuinely puzzled by this: are authors actually prepared to manage their own copyright and permissions? Do they not care whether people steal their ideas and illustrations?<br />--Good reviews are time-consuming. We request 3 reviews and require 2 positive reviews to publish. In most disciplines, there is a limited pool of people who are qualified to do the reviewing (this is determined by editors, not publishers), and most have limited availability due to other commitments. I thought the comment suggesting that hiring and tenure committees take review service into account was a good one; don't know how feasible that is--how to evaluate quantity and quality of these contributions? Paying for reviews is problematic on many, many levels...but for the sake of discussion...what would be an appropriate payment or token for doing a review?<br /><br />Other random thoughts provoked by this thread.<br />--Some disciplines already have a model for publishing data sets that can be used by any scholar; a researcher would ideally be given credit for the data set and separate credit for any scholarly product based on that data set. This isn't a universal ideal yet, though. In some fields, the data sets are proprietary; or, access to a data set may make litigation easier, which discourages making such info available. Oh, and archiving data sets and the programs to access them: nightmare! (That's what institutional repositories are for.)<br />--I look forward to the day when we can dispense with one useless artifact of the print world: page numbers.<br /><br />Thanks to anyone who slogged all the way through this comment.GlassPennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-48173381453790173862010-08-27T10:02:20.763-05:002010-08-27T10:02:20.763-05:00Special issues are really neat to publish -- they&...Special issues are really neat to publish -- they're themed, they're relevant, they can become a volume that's useful in and of itself (not destined to the dustbin). <br /><br />That said, authors can be particularly challenging when you're doing a special issue. They know their piece will get published, and some don't feel compelled to submit things in the proper format, reply to queries, get permissions for the random whatnot (e.g., illustrations) they want to use. It can clog up the whole darn process. <br /><br />You might say, well, just don't publish pieces by the authors who are a pain. Yes, but then what happens to, say, a response piece by a junior scholar (for whom it's very important to see it go to print)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-20338333513553814672010-08-26T12:35:37.432-05:002010-08-26T12:35:37.432-05:00My JWH timeline, from acceptance and submission of...My JWH timeline, from acceptance and submission of my final version to publication was 26 months. Why? Because there were special issues in the pipeline. So it works both ways, I suppose.Notorious Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08700875559325201086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-34964341549065584582010-08-26T12:22:14.101-05:002010-08-26T12:22:14.101-05:00I'm sorry to hear about your rejection from To...I'm sorry to hear about your rejection from Top Journal, but I agree that a speedy rejection beats a slow one. (And I admire your brave candor about it all.)<br /><br />Thanks for the tip on the new Joan Scott venture. Sounds like a bloggy sort of journal!Historiannhttp://historiann.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-70285645287095732132010-08-26T10:30:59.671-05:002010-08-26T10:30:59.671-05:00Regarding the response made by the senior scholar ...Regarding the response made by the senior scholar and experienced journal editor, how would that conception of "revise and resubmit" be different from "accept pending revision"? I liked the way you posed the issue in your original blog entry. Either your article is rejected and you take the comments to heart and try to resubmit elsewhere; or it's accepted, but you know you have to revise (perhaps substantially) before it's published.<br /><br />As you stated, maybe the journal review process isn't supposed to be to a way to "get free advice from top people in the field." Maybe the scholar should be taking the time to do that before submission, through exchanges with colleagues and her personal network.<br /><br />On the other hand, if there is going to be a transition to an open-review process and the whole endeavor of article-writing is going to become collaborative on a whole new level, then maybe it's appropriate to submit something to a journal forum/website at an earlier stage. But it seems to me that this idea of "early submission, lots of revision" would be more appropriate if collaboration actually becomes the emphasis, as it would be with the open-review idea.pplcnoreply@blogger.com