[Milton-L] soliciting of reviews

Jameela Lares Jameela.Lares at usm.edu
Mon Dec 15 02:52:51 EST 2008


Hannibal Hamlin wrote:  "This is not elitism, Jameela, or if it is it's good elitism, the same kind that's behind reviewing in the first place or behind the principles of selection exercised by publishers of articles and books.  The process of peer review does not actually involve "peers," exactly.  As a junior scholar, my first book proposal was reviewed not by other junior scholars, without books, but by "senior" (i.e., "credentialled" not "aged") ones, and surely none of us would have it otherwise.  The same goes for articles submitted to journals, and also for reviews for promotion and tenure.  It seems silly to suggest that there is something wrong about have experts review those who are just getting into a field."


But even if we set aside the question of elitism, what you propose is still unworkable.  If only those persons who are well established in any field are allowed to review, when will they get any of their own work done?  I am reminded of similar protest made by Milton in Areopagitica.

Jameela Lares
Professor of English
The U. of So. Mississippi
118 College Drive, #5037
Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001
601 266-6214 ofc
601 266-5757 fax





__________________________________________________

>From Hannibal Hamlin <hamlin.hannibal at gmail.com>
Sent Sun 12/14/2008 4:59 PM
To John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
Subject Re: [Milton-L] soliciting of reviews


I didn't mean to imply, Jim, that scholarly reviewers should be held to the same standard as Plato's philosopher king -- unripe until 60 -- just that they ought to be themselves published scholars in a relevant field.  Of course, sometimes this process doesn't work as well as it ought to, perhaps because of the limitations of a few of those experts, but as you say, the process probably works as well as it can, given the inevitable involvement of fallible humans.
 
Shifting gears somewhat, I think that behind your concern lies another "problem" with scholarly reviews, that we're of mixed minds about what they're actually for.  Sometimes they seem almost an extension of publisher's PR machines; they serve to advertise books and provide somewhat detailed blurbs and summaries that will help readers who haven't the time to read everything and want to know which books they should really read and which they should just know about.  On the other hand, reviews can also serve as the means by which research is evaluated by the scholarly community, or at least the means by which such evaluations are disseminated.  But furthermore, especially for junior scholars, reviews are also inevitably part of the process by which we are evaluation, not just by our peers but by our employers.  This is not something to take lightly.  A damning review could not only establish a poor scholarly reputation, it could result in, or at least contribute to, a denial of tenure.  When I was in my last year of graduate school, a senior scholar at a grad student professional development sessions advised us strongly against reviewing.  You can make enemies, he said, that could do you real harm later in life, and all for a line on your cv that won't matter much anyway (do promotion and tenure committees really care about reviews? not mine).  Since then, I've heard many stories from all sorts of colleagues about enemies they made in just this way.  I don't think reviews should be where grad students cut their scholarly teeth.  It doesn't do them much good, it could do them real harm, and it doesn't do the rest of us much good to have our scholarship reviewed by our students.
 
Hannibal


 
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Watt, James <jwatt at butler.edu (mailto:jwatt at butler.edu)> wrote:
Exactly So, Jameela!!

But don't worry, the old ones in the nature of things will first forget to pull up the ladder, then forget that there IS a ladder.  That's when you'll see them raining down from the tree tops like so many rotten (or as they say in Jazz circles, moldy) figs.

Jim Watt
________________________________________
From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu (mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu) [milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu (mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu)] On Behalf Of Jameela Lares [Jameela.Lares at usm.edu (mailto:Jameela.Lares at usm.edu)]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:04 AM
To: John Milton Discussion List

Subject: Re: [Milton-L] soliciting of reviews



On Friday 12/12/2008, Hannibal Hamlin wrote:

"This raises, alas, yet another question -- who should be doing the reviewing.  Many young scholars, even graduate students, are eager to review, since this is a relatively easy way of getting publications.  But this can easily make enemies and damage career prospects.  There is also a problem of authority.  I confess I get irritated when I read reviews in TLS or other major journals that are written by graduate students, even when the arguments seem sound.  Since a review is partly a guide to books that one hasn't read, one wants to be able to trust the reviewer.  This is not to deny the argument that we all have ideological bias -- not a very interesting one, I think -- but rather to assert the need for credentials and the desire of the reader for a reviewer that can be trusted."

Sorry to have not replied sooner, but I am troubled by this comment, as it seems both unworkable and unnecessarily elitist to insist that only established scholars write reviews.  How otherwise can junior scholars get established or, for that matter, how can a field of inquiry continue to attract new members?  Surely not by having those above them pull up the ladder and close the club.  Plus we all know senior scholars who can't be bothered to write reviews any more, and I hope we all know some upcoming scholars who are dazzling. Part of all our woe that death brought into the world is  that we all will only have a short time to be really established in academe.

It seems to me that the system we've got--of overworked editors comissioning reviewers as best they can--is as workable as it's going to get.

Jameela Lares
Professor of English
The U. of So. Mississippi
118 College Drive, #5037
Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001
601 266-6214 ofc
601 266-5757 fax






_______________________________________________
Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu (mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu)
Manage your list membership and access list archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l (http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l)

Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/ (http://johnmilton.org/)







--
Hannibal Hamlin
Associate Professor of English
The Ohio State University
Burkhardt Fellow,
The Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
hamlin.22 at osu.edu/ (http://hamlin.22@osu.edu/)
hamlin.hannibal at gmail.com (mailto:hamlin.hannibal at gmail.com)


__________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu (mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu)
Manage your list membership and access list archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l (http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l)

Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/ (http://johnmilton.org/)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20081215/ef640a07/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Milton-L mailing list