Being a Kindly Blind Peer Reviewer: Promptness

So, after reading A Modernist Fantasy (2018) last month, I've turned into a major fan of James Gifford. And I've recently discovered that he's had a small blog series going where he describes the blind review process . . . . which is helpful because, as he says in one of the posts, academia is notoriously secretive, and my experience with the "blind peer review" genre comes entirely from common sense and the few blind reviews I've received.

 So, from this post, here was a particularly helpful bit of information:
I made a quasi-promise to myself three years ago to resolve that contradiction. When asked to review an article, I either decline or complete the review by the end of the next day. It’s not really a matter of hurrying or spending more or less time – it’s simply when the time is allocated. I could race at the end of the deadline or just read the materials on the train the same day I receive them and send off comments the next morning (sometimes even that night).
Good gawd, YES. First, it's nice to get confirmation of my suspicion of how much time reviewers actually spend on these things (although I've also seen cases where reviewers have clearly perused a few extra books, just for their review). But, second, there's absolutely no reason on God's green earth that academic publishing has to take as long as it does. Me, personally, even when I was editing Scientia et Humanitas, I always did my reviews by the next day, and I've continued that practice as a post-doctoral researcher. As a reviews editor for Fafnir, too, I always return commentary on book reviews to their authors by the next day.

 Part of me feels that I need to be cautious and self-reflective here. Although I'm a non-TT lecturer teaching a 4-4 load, which many people make sound as if it's infinitely taxing, that kind of workload at the U of Arizona isn't as harsh as at some other programs. Even so, I often wonder if academics (blind peer reviewers, book reviewers, etc.) aren't just really bad at managing their time and workloads efficiently.

 Moral of this story: academia is lovely and it's fun. Why put off until the deadline what you could do immediately? It's like getting a candy bar and waiting two weeks to eat it. Just hurry up and write your reviews . . . and see what lovely arguments other academics are making.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Genre Fantasy Bestsellers through 1990

Image
I've been studying Keith Justice's Bestseller Index , which compiles information from two separate bestseller lists -- New York Times Book Review and Publishers Weekly -- up through 1990, and the results are ridiculously fascinating. For instance, you wanna take a stab at which SFF author has the most individual books appear on a bestseller list? No, it ain't Heinlein, Clark, Herbert, or Asimov. It's not even Terry Brooks or David Eddings. No, the answer is Piers Anthony . And even if you somehow pulled that name out of thin air, I guarantee you'll never guess how truly dominate Anthony was. Up through 1990, Anthony had more than double than number of distinct bestsellers than the next most frequent bestseller, Anne McCaffrey. Whereas Anthony had an astounding  22 different books appear on a bestseller list, McCaffrey had "only" 9.** Now, caveats. These numbers need to be taken with one (or two) grains of salt. For instance, although Anthony had 22 two dis
Read more

Thoughts upon Reading Tolkien's New & Expanded LETTERS

So, I'm reading through the newly expanded version of Tolkien's Letters. One thing I hadn't properly realized is that these letters were part of Carpenter's original manuscript back in 1981, but Carpenter had to cut them due to cost. Turns out that Carpenter had a pretty keen eye on what could bear cutting -- most of this new stuff isn't terribly interesting, but I discovered a few nuggets. VINDICATED!! (Me, sorta) Naturally, whenever you read new primary material, your first instinct is to check to see if anything contradicts something you've said in print ... especially biographically. Well, I've made three big "biographical" claims, and here's my sigh of relief: Concerning my claim that, in 1954, Tolkien and colleagues contrived to create CS Lewis's academic chair at Cambridge in exchange for them nominating EM Forster for the Nobel Prize. Nothing in  Letters  supports or contradicts this. In my recent article for  Notes & Queries ,
Read more

Uncovering CS Lewis's First Religious Poem

 So, with my article's official acceptance by the journal English Text Construction , it's time to let the cat out of the bag. Using a combination of metrical analysis and biography, I've ascertained with near perfect certainty the first religious poem C. S. Lewis poem ever wrote .... a short poem, "Sweet Desire," that scholars have never previously paid any attention to. This poem is firmly datable to early 1930, probably January or February is my guess, and given the poem's subject matter, it's clearly talking about CSL's fears and intellectual trepidation about becoming a theist and abandoning atheism for good. It's basically Lewis's version of Caedmon's Hymn . The full metrical details will have to await my article, but one interesting caveat on my claims to firstness. In my peer reviewer's commentary, they recommended I contact a CSL scholar named  Charlie W. Starr, who's been working on Lewis's handwriting for quite a lon
Read more