I'm a bit troubled

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John Hoopes: "E-mail address for Jim Brady"
• Previous message: Lee Cronk: "New Am. Anth. letter"
• Next in thread: wilkr: "Re: I'm a bit troubled"

I agree that with the current unhappiness with the apparent direction of AA
editorial policy, the Editorial Board of the journal is the final arbiter,
but I must admit to being disturbed a bit by how this is being done. If
people write directly to the Tedlocks and are not satisfied with the reply,
then the next step is to the Board. In taking this step, I would suggest
a slightly different strategy: one that a colleague used quite successfully
a couple years ago with another journal. I would write the letter to the
Board and send it to the journal editor(s) with a request that he/she/they
distribute the letter to the Board members. This gives the editors one more
opportunity to rethink the situation before a potentially embarrassing
confrontation ensues. I see no need to provoke a battle until (1) it is
clear that there really is a concerted effort to do the things the Tedlocks
are being accused of and (2) before engaging in a reasoned discussion with
the Tedlocks about the issues that are apparently being raised and dealt with.
These folks just took on this nasty, time-consuming job. Don't they deserve
the common decency of being asked questions before being accused and being
informed of people's concerns before being backed into a corner? Does it have
to be a war before one knows whether one is facing an enemy?

Mike Lieber

• Next message: John Hoopes: "E-mail address for Jim Brady"
• Previous message: Lee Cronk: "New Am. Anth. letter"
• Next in thread: wilkr: "Re: I'm a bit troubled"