Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Going around the Room: Journal Culture

Posted by Jonathan Goodwin on 04/19/05 at 10:50 AM

In the interests of continuing to get to know each other better, here are some questions about academic journals, particularly citation formats. Your answers will reveal crucial aspects of your personality and socialization, so be careful!

  1. Do you prefer Chicago or MLA? Why?
  2. Do you think there’s a recognizable cultural difference between Chicago-style and MLA journals? Describe.
  3. When you have to convert an article from one format to another, do you a) do it by hand (or have a research assistant do it by hand) b) use commercial software designed for the task or c) write your own complicated macro or short program to do it for you?
  4. Have you ever chosen a journal to submit to based solely on the fact that it required the same format you originally used to write the article?
  5. When reading a scholarly book or article, do you prefer footnotes or endnotes? Do you like your endnotes at the end of the chapter or the end of the book?
  6. What’s your position on discursive notes?
  7. Do you fill in your bibliography as you write, or do you add it later?
  8. What’s the longest you’ve ever waited on a decision from a journal?
  9. How do you feel about journals that use one-way blind reviewing (i.e., the reviewers know who you are, but you don’t know who they are)?
  10. Have you ever checked the MLA’s statistics on various journals’ self-reported acceptance rates? How did you feel about what you learned?
  11. How quickly do you turn around peer-reviews? If not very quickly, do you then still complain about the time it takes for your own articles to be reviewed? What does this all mean?

My own answers will follow shortly.


Comments

The MLA style sheet ca. 1965 was my first intimation that I probably would not enjoy and academic career. Or maybe the Chicago style sheet. I still whichever one I learned then, insofar as I remember it.

I had a run-in on turnaround times recently at a journal which had previously published something of mine. I decided, why bother? I can self-publish everything, and probably nobody will read it, but no one seems to have read the stuff I published in refereed journals either. (Though of course, I may relapse).

To someone who’s involved in scholarship but outside the academic machine, the negativities of the present system present themselves differently than they do to those trapped inside it.

By John Emerson on 04/19/05 at 12:17 PM | Permanent link to this comment

1.  Chicago.  a) ‘Cos I went to grad school there.  b) ‘Cos I worked for one of their lit journals for a bit, and let me tell you, the Manual was the Bible.  We even did the “open to random page for help in time of need” thing.  (Yes, I’m kidding.  But just.)
2.  No.
3.  By hand, grumbling all the way.
4.  No.
5.  Footnotes.  If there must be endnotes, then let them be at the end of the chapter.
6.  I love discursive notes.  The more discourse the better, I say. 
7.  I do the bibliography at the end, which is not the most efficient way of handling things.
8.  I don’t think I’ve ever had to wait more than three months or so for a decision.
9.  I don’t especially like one-way blind reviewing, but life goes on. 
10.  Yes, I’ve checked, but I don’t really believe them (for reasons having to do with prior employment, mentioned in #1). 
11.  Within a week, if possible.

By Miriam Elizabeth Burstein on 04/19/05 at 05:09 PM | Permanent link to this comment

1.  MLA. Force of habit.
2.  No.
3.  By hand. (Research assistant??!!?) I mucked around with Endnote for awhile, but never really took to it.
4.  No.
5.  Footnotes.  If using endnotes, they are better at the end of the chapter (easier to xerox).
6.  I love to write discursive notes; I tend to skim other people’s.
7.  As I write. Easier in the long run.
8.  When we were in grad school, a friend and I wrote an article together and submitted it for a collection. We were invited to revise and resubmit, which we did. We waited months. And more months. Finally, I contacted the editor, extremely apologetic to be bothering her but wondering etc. etc. The book was in press; our revisions had never reached her.
We learnt a big lesson that day.
9.  Reciprocity in all things.
10.  I’ve seen some stats and they seem encouraging. Which is odd.
11.  I try to be prompt, but life sometimes intervenes. Given that it does, I try not to complain too much when I am on the receiving end. But it is a clunky system.

By Miriam Jones on 04/19/05 at 07:17 PM | Permanent link to this comment

1. Chicago. It feels to me like what grownups use.
2. Pass.
3. By hand.
4. No.
5. Footnotes, footnotes, footnotes!
6. I like ‘em.
7. A little from column A; a little from column B.
8. Two months.
9. Not so good.
10. Yes. I felt a slight vibration, as if a leaf had fallen near my forearm and the resulting breeze had gently moved the fine hairs there.
11. Not as quickly as I should. I cut other people slack when they read my stuff.

By gzombie on 04/19/05 at 08:13 PM | Permanent link to this comment

1.  Chicago.  Purely aesthetic grounds.  CMS looks cleaner.

2.  No.

3.  Endnote.  Expensive but worth it.  Forces me to annotate what I’d otherwise read with pleasure.

4.  No.

5.  Footnotes.  Since I’m an archive hound, I love the scent of a reference.  You’d think I’d enjoy the chase--after all, I did love Infinite Jest--but in a scholarly work, I prefer footnotes. 

6.  Contained in all real scholarship, i.e. work produced by research instead of the Great Theory Meat Grinder.

7.  Bibliography?  Shit…

8.  I’m still waiting to hear back from Enda Duffy on some re-re-writes he wanted...three years ago.  On occasion I google “European Joyce Studies” to see if the issue Duffy’s presumably still editing has been published yet and whether the essay’s included.

9.  Since no one knows who I am--I have no academic reputation one way or another--it doesn’t bother me.  Once the inevitable vilification starts, it’ll be my bane.

10.  No.  Where can I find this information?  I’d like to know whether I’m being kindly, indifferently or vigorously rejected.

11.  I think this question’s directed at the Ph.D.s and not the lowly A.B.D.s, and I know my place…

By A. Cephalous on 04/19/05 at 08:18 PM | Permanent link to this comment

1 Chicago, but I also often use APA and even had to use one called “Harvard” for a vet sciences journal.
2 I don’t know MLA, I am a philosopher peddling my trade in an ed school, but there is a huge difference between Chicago and APA.
3 Software.
4 Yes.
5 Footnotes are easier.  Endnotes are annoying, especially if the book just lists “Chapter 3” in the endnotes, and you have to flip back and forth.
6 Meaning what, annotated?  Not too helpful.
7 Add later.
8 A year.  I edit a journal now and turn stuff around in under 4 months.  Electronic submission and management by bepress.com helps.
9 Don’t like it and I don’t use the term “blind”...one should say “anonymous.”
10 No, but acceptance rates are a big deal in tenure and promotion decisions at my university.
11 I turn around reviews within the time given, always.

By A. G. Rud on 04/21/05 at 08:50 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: