How to read “how to get published”¹

Rich, Blessed, and Tenured: A Homological Exploration of Grant Writing, Prosperity Theology, and Neoliberalism

“…This compulsion towards upward movement, rarely questioned as good, takes on a life of its own and comes to drive us more than we drive it (Rushing & Frentz, 1999, p. 231). Similarly, Bach et al (1996) are critical of Chesebro's connection between a faculty member's failure to publish enough and his or her lack of motivation. They also highlight how Chesebro's advice on preventing demotivation is conducive to a climate of alienation and insecurity (i.e., adopting a ''rigorous'' schedule and work routine, making writing less ''threatening,'' ''reinforcing'' a commitment to write, and imposing ''discipline'' on oneself) (p. 402).…”

“…Previous research detailed the dangers of defining academic success through narrowly quantifiable scholarly productivity metrics (Bach, Blair, Nothstine, & Pym, 1996;Rushing & Frentz, 1999). For example, Bach et al (1996) critique Chesebro's (1993 advice article ''How to Get Published'' to show how determining academic success primarily by journal article publication rates elevates ''quantity of output'' over ''quality of work'' (p. 330), fetishizes the product itself rather than its potential scholarly contribution, and encourages faculty to give up autonomy and intellectual creativity by ''pandering to power brokers'' (p. 406) (in the form of journal editors and reviewers)-all so that faculty can avoid being branded an unmotivated failure and forced to leave the community of academia (p. 413). Rushing and Frentz (1999) also warn against this ''unremitting call for more, especially in lieu of an active concern for what is good'' (p. 243).…”

Peer review as the enforcement of disciplinary orthodoxy

“…Since "the reviewers who are best equipped to evaluate a study are also likely to be competitors of the authors" (Relman and Angell, 1989, p. 828), scholarship that may threaten a reviewer's status could receive an unduly harsh evaluation. Furthermore, extant scholars in a specialty benefit from having fewer competitors in their area, a situation that makes reviewers reluctant to add to the ranks of published authors (Bach et al, 1996). What Blair, Brown, and Baxter describe goes beyond sheer selfishness or fear of competition.…”

“…Bach et al (1996) point out that scholars should avoid naturalizing disciplinary practices, reiterating the reminder "that our current norms are, at least in part, matters of collective choice, not necessity" (p. 415). If reviewers understand that they articulate scholarly customs and preferences, they can remain the custodians of disciplinary traditions without suffering the myopia (and patronizing attitude) attendant to believing they voice timeless truths.…”

Menulis Artikel Jurnal

“…Satu hal lagi, publikasi erat kaitannya dengan membaca. Sehingga saat meneliti, juga perlu mengidentifikasi bacaan (Bach, Blair, Nothstine & Pym, 1996). Bisajadi topik yang sama sudah diteliti oleh kolega yang lain.…”