Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2012 :: July ::
Peer Review

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0315  Tuesday, 24 July 2012

[1] From:        Richard Waugaman < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
     Date:         July 24, 2012 9:55:04 AM EDT
     Subject:     Peer Review

[2] From:        Terence Hawkes < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
     Date:         July 24, 2012 7:18:46 AM EDT
     Subject:     Peer Review

[3] From:        David Bishop < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
     Date:         July 24, 2012 2:11:08 PM EDT
     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Peer/Shand


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:        Richard Waugaman < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Date:         July 24, 2012 9:55:04 AM EDT
Subject:     Peer Review

This is a healthy discussion. Rather than contribute to it, I’ll just mention that I ventilated on some 40 years of experiences as the recipient of peer review in a whimsical article in a psychoanalytic newsletter. My title proposed a new diagnosis: Post-Traumatic Writer’s Stress Disorder (PTWSD).

Yes, I also do peer review for several psychoanalytic and literary journals, but that’s another story.

I’m happy to send a pdf of my article to anyone interested (it’s not on my website).

Richard M. Waugaman

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:        Terence Hawkes < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Date:         July 24, 2012 7:18:46 AM EDT
Subject:     Peer Review

What disturbs me about Gabriel Egan’s notion concerning double-bind peer reviews is that it reduces editors to desiccated calculating machines, in thrall to so-called experts. The trouble is that in the end all the articles start to sound the same. I note that in his rather austere progress at the Washington DC meeting of the Renaissance Society of America he heard an editor declining any form of peer review. ‘I’ve been toying with the idea of complaining about this’ he claims. Toy away your eminence. You can mention my name.
 
Terence Hawkes

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:        David Bishop < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Date:         July 24, 2012 2:11:08 PM EDT
Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Peer/Shand

An essay of mine was recently rejected by the British Association journal Shakespeare’s editor, Brett Hirsch, with this explanation:

I regret to inform you that, after consideration, we feel your submission unsuitable for publication in Shakespeare. Your essay does not sufficiently engage with the existing critical conversation on Hamlet and editorial practice to be able to offer a credible intervention in it.

Probably this is a case of what Gabriel Egan describes as the editor’s responsibility “to reject the hopeless cases even before they get seen by the referees”. I don’t seriously expect that any referee would have recommended publication. But I keep testing the ice.

Best wishes,
David Bishop

 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.