New Directions for AA

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: MP Mann: "Two threads:diversity and hooks"
• Previous message: Read, Dwight ANTHRO: "environmental conditions and "constraint"

new directions for AA debate, I am enthralled by the openness of the
communication so far on the list regarding censorship- I don't think that
applies here,though- slander, I can't picture that applying here, either,
although the case that Dave Rindos won in Australia is fairly well known
in the anthropological community, and who defines the vision of a journal
that supposedly crosses all disciplines in the field.
How exactly is the vision of the field defined in a major journal? Is it
defined by the editors, the executive committee of the Board of Directors
of the organization, the editorial board, or those who are actually in the
trenches and turning out work that will be the substance of the discipline
when historians come to judge it in the future?
There is no doubt that editors put a stamp on a journal in a number of ways.
Format can change under an editor. There can be the removal of some part
of the journal that is irrelevant to the field today on other grounds. An
editor should definitely have guidelines in his or her head about the number
of pages that can be devoted to one or another part of the field, so that it
is not swamped with a continually narrowing set of articles from one or another
another subdisciplines. The editor's responsibility to send all articles that
meet the formal guidelines of the journal out for review is another aspect
of the duties of this person that are important, from my perspective.
Justw does an editor put his or her stamp on a journal without heavy
handedness?
Any takers on this?
Tom Riley

• Next message: MP Mann: "Two threads:diversity and hooks"
• Previous message: Read, Dwight ANTHRO: "environmental conditions and "constraint"