What Is an Editor?

Snider, Alvin

doi:10.17077/2168-569x.1105

Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies

2010

DOI: 10.17077/2168-569x.1105

|View full text |Cite

What Is an Editor?

Alvin Snider¹

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2012

2018

Publication Types

Select...

Article4

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent4

Authors

Journals

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted by Snider, the role of editors and authors sustained each other. 32 The whole arena of editing scholarly journals, surprisingly enough, has not been subject to much sustained scrutiny or analysis. Editing, in my view, provides a ready-made site for posing a range of theoretical questions about authorship, the status of texts, the materiality of printed objects, originality, copyright, collaboration, book reviewing, and so forth.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Working as an editor will force the hand of anyone who prefers to ignore such matters as typography, layout, paper grades, and print runs -none of which will seem inconsequential to those called upon to make judgments on such matters. 33 the rise of the reviewer The argument at hand for us to consider regarding scholarly works before the appearance of universities in Bologna and Paris isn't whether they were censored, as suggested by Fuchs, 34 but whether they were reviewed by anyone. It is this author's argument that review did in fact occur, if only evidenced by the differing opinions that appeared and the varying condemnations that arose in various parts of Europe.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

University Press Forum 2012: Looking Backward and Forward

Bartlett¹

2012

scp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Back in the olden days—the 1990s and early 2000s— Choice 's university press feature, which appears every year in the May issue, comprised an essay based on responses to questionnaires we had sent to all AAUP directors and a list of significant university press titles for undergraduates. The latter, which directly follows the forum, remains a tradition, and we invite you to peruse it to sample the riches that continue to emanate from university presses. Some things never change. The essay, however, morphed in the May 2005 issue into what we call a forum. We wanted to give university press directors and editors an opportunity to speak for themselves. Every year since, we've sought out a handful of directors and asked them to contribute to this forum. That first year we asked contributors to talk about their presses' editorial focus and policies, but in the years since we've adopted a no-holds-barred attitude vis-a`-vis subject matter. The only directive we have given is that the contributor write about a subject relevant to the press's publishing program or to university press publishing in general. In seeking out presses to contribute, we've made efforts to be geographically diverse and to ask presses both large and small. Our tack this year was somewhat different. We thought we'd go back to several presses that had contributed in the first couple of years of this forum and ask them to read their earlier contributions and comment on how university presses and their concerns have (or haven't) changed in the intervening years. Accordingly, we prevailed on University of California Press, Columbia University Press, University of Illinois Press, Ohio University Press and Swallow Press, and Stanford University Press to speak to us again. Two of this year's contributors—Alan Harvey (Stanford) and Jennifer Crewe (Columbia)—wrote their presses' earlier forum pieces. The others—Willis Regier (Illinois), Alison Mudditt (California), and Kevin Hawworth (Ohio)—stepped in because of management changes at the presses. As always, the comments are illuminating. I'll not summarize, characterize, or comment on what follows, because nothing I would say would benefit what follows. Suffice it to say, it's pretty much all about e Enjoy.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

University Press Forum 2012: Looking Backward and Forward

Bartlett¹

2012

scp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Church and Peer Review: Was ‘Peer’ Review Fairer, More Honest Then Than Now?

Gould¹

2012

Journal of Scholarly Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 16 th Century, seeking approval for one's work has required everything from capturing classic patronage to attaining academic standards. The process of a work's review has ranged widely from having an "insider's track," to seeing one's work rejected for anything but obvious or defensible reasons. What is sought by the academy has always been a method to identify the works that exhibit validity and reliability, perhaps best described as "sound" in design and execution. At its best, peer review is not bound to the status quo, but rather by progress, exhibited either as reaffirmation of an existing thesis, or introduction of a new idea grounded in solid methods and reasoning. However, what drives the individual academic to create may not match the responsibilities of the academic gatekeepers, whose duties revolve around assuring that what is created is based on best practices. The scientist/scholar wishes to push the boundaries, discover the possible causes for X. The reviewers wish to protect the academic community from bad ideas, unreliable methods, and unsound theories. One group, therefore, is inherently liberal in its thinking, while the latter is routinely more conservative. The argument for the past twenty to thirty years is that the goals of peer reviewsound, reliable, reproducible research-are noble, but the method of application of academic oversight is corrupt, erroneous, and often no better than chance in its outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to draw a comparison to a time of peer review rarely examined, that being the method applied prior to the 17th Century, to the current system The Church and Peer Review: Was "Peer" Review Fairer, More Honest Then Than Now? 2 Journal of Scholarly Publishing, December 2012 in place today and, in doing so, offering that the similarities may provide some counsel to the development of a new form of peer review.

show abstract

Clowning and authorship in early modern theatre

Preiss

2015

Choice Reviews Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

What Is an Editor?

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

University Press Forum 2012: Looking Backward and Forward

University Press Forum 2012: Looking Backward and Forward

The Church and Peer Review: Was ‘Peer’ Review Fairer, More Honest Then Than Now?

Clowning and authorship in early modern theatre

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About