« The Wonder of the Unremarkable | Main | Rain and Snow »

November 18, 2008


Jeff Scott

Would you say that Hawthorne's move is the same as Library Journals? Make money off of the controversy via the Howard Stern effect?

It seemed to irritate one layer with Library Journal (mostly top bloggers), but the second move has irritated the academics. Two sides of the same coin?

T Scott

I think it's unlikely that anyone at Haworth had much to do with this specific instance -- editorial independence is the keystone of scholarly publishing and I've no reason to think that Haworth breeches that (although one would think that they would exercise enough oversight to insure that normal standards of peer review are being followed). Responsibility for the contents of a journal lie with the editor -- in this case, David Pena at Miami Dade College. The introduction to the issue is written by Wayne Bivens-Tatum (Princeton), so he may have served as guest editor. I assume that in his introduction he explains why he thought this was a good idea, but since I don't get the journal, I don't know what that explanation might consist of. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but as I said in my post, I'd be hard pressed to imagine why one would think it a good idea to devote an issue of a supposedly scholarly journal (that only comes out quarterly), to a series of edited blog posts from a satirist. And that's nothing against AL -- I'd be annoyed if someone suggested doing it with MY blog posts.


Add this wrinkle to the mix, and it gets more perplexing and even less appealing:


"I’m on the editorial board for this journal and this was news to me; it just showed up in my mail Friday afternoon."

The comments to this entry are closed.