[Air-l] Trouble with journals

[Jose P. Zagal]

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 at 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 at usa.net
>
> To manage your subscription to this mailing list, visit:
>
> http://lists.easaonline.org/listinfo.cgi/medianthro-easaonline.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at 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 at 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 at cc.gatech.edu  - http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~jp