Issue #4

Introduction: Publication & Its Discontents: Peer Review, Publishing, and the Politics of the Open

  • Bryce Peake
  • Karen Estlund

Public service, personal achievement, pedagogical resource, the advancement of knowledge: these are the some of the many aspirations of publication for authors, administrators, libraries, and publishers. Recent debates over open access and open peer review (what we call here ‘the open’), however, have revealed the extent to which publication has also long been a site … Continue reading Introduction: Publication & Its Discontents: Peer Review, Publishing, and the Politics of the Open

Opening Out from Open Access: Writing and Publishing in Response to Neoliberalism

  • Sarah Kember

Writing a short piece such as this doesn’t only focus the mind (quick, what’s my point? what am I trying to say?), it also directs it toward the process of writing. Right now, in this period we’re calling academic capitalism (or the neoliberalisation of life, the university and everything) there is, for me, nothing much … Continue reading Opening Out from Open Access: Writing and Publishing in Response to Neoliberalism

The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review

  • Didier Torny
  • David Pontille

Whatever form it may take, the peer review of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals always has the same purpose: to proffer a totally objective opinion. This involves taking on the role of “modest witness”, that of a man of science unpolluted by his own subjectivity and corporeality, whose historical and political emergence was so well … Continue reading The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review

Watching the Detectives: Review’s Past and Present

  • Korey Jackson

Clapping and Counting: Assessment’s (Very Brief) Past Academia tends to have a fairly narrow view of its own administrative history, especially when it comes to the strange, epiphenomenal genres of assessment that underwrite it. Faculty assessment discourse—applicant dossiers, reader’s reports, letters of recommendation—all have an aura of deep entrenchment about them.  Like most of the … Continue reading Watching the Detectives: Review’s Past and Present

Feminist Journal Editing: Does This Job Include Benefits?

  • Lisa McLaughlin

In the academic world, the issue of scholarly publication in journals always is a timely one for discussion. In my case, this is an especially opportune moment to reflect on journal editing and publishing. After 16 years as founding editor, and co-editor (with Cynthia Carter) of the international, peer-reviewed journal Feminist Media Studies (FMS), I … Continue reading Feminist Journal Editing: Does This Job Include Benefits?

Rethinking Peer Review in the Age of Digital Humanities

  • Roopika Risam

For academics, double-blind peer review processes remain the gold standard for validating scholarly work. The value accrued by scholarship has traditionally flowed mono-directionally from peer review. In the hierarchies that govern academic hiring and tenure and promotion practices, the single-authored monograph from the distinguished scholarly press sent out for review upon completion occupies a position … Continue reading Rethinking Peer Review in the Age of Digital Humanities

DHThis: An Experiment in Crowdsourcing Review in the Digital Humanities

  • Adeline Koh

In 2013, Martin Eve, Jesse Stommel, Roopika Risam, Alex Gil and I[1] launched DHThis.org, an experiment in crowdsourcing the “best” work in the digital humanities[2]. DHThis is the first entirely crowdsourced outlet for digital humanities (DH) news. There are no comparable models to DHThis. All existing sites which aggregate DH content still run on an … Continue reading DHThis: An Experiment in Crowdsourcing Review in the Digital Humanities

Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology
ISSN 2325-0496