[Air-l] Trouble with journals

[elw at stderr.org]

> 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