POST: Crowdsourcing Best Practices for Experimental Journals: Transparency 1

Drawing on her recent experience working with the Journal of Digital Humanities, Adeline Koh (Assistant Professor of Literature, Stockton College) has invited input on best practices for increasing transparency in the publication process for academic journals. Starting with ideas offered by Roopika Risam and Scott Weingart, Koh seeks to develop practices that take into consideration the following questions:

What defines “merit” in a field, particularly in a growing one with new paradigms competing to displace the old? How do editors function as gatekeepers, and what is their responsibility to be cognizant of their power? What are the politics involved in final editorial decisions? What are the advantages and disadvantages to allowing these decisions to rest with a contingent junior faculty member or a tenured senior faculty member? How do we account for the emotionally charged issues of racial, gendered, sexual and able-bodied structural privilege in editorial decisions about “merit”?

dh+lib Review

This post was produced through a cooperation between Caitlin Christian-Lamb, Lauren Gottlieb-Miller, Nat Gustafson-Sundell, and Chella Vaidyanathan (Editors-at-Large for the week), Roxanne Shirazi (Editor for the week), and Zach Coble, Caro Pinto and Sarah Potvin (dh+lib Review Editors).

One comment on “POST: Crowdsourcing Best Practices for Experimental Journals: Transparency

  1. Pingback: RESOURCE: Journal of Digital Humanities 2.2 ← dh+lib

Comments are closed.