In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • An AJHCS Editorial Position Paper: A Modest Proposal Regarding Peer-Review
  • Benjamin Fraser (bio), Malcolm Alan Compitello (bio), and Eva Karene Romero (bio)

As we continue to move into an era in which published scholarship is of ever-greater importance for those in the profession—and given the constant reminders of the limitations placed upon academic publishing houses (cf. Bernard-Donals 173, Argersinger and Cornett 108)—journal editors necessarily confront a shifting landscape in which they must reassess their approach to the peer-review process.

Make no mistake, we at the AJHCS believe that the valued place afforded peer-reviewed journal publications can and should be maintained—as part of a scholarly conversation, as part of a valued disciplinary tradition and as a form of certification of quality work. Our end goal is not to reconfigure the base structure of peer-review in Hispanic studies—to wit: readers should expect here neither an engagement with the issues associated with “open”-review nor explicit support for nontraditional publication formats nor even non-anonymous review (see Fish “No Bias, No Merit,” “Reply”; Skoblow; Harnad). Nor do we want to participate, here, in the ongoing (although perhaps lucid) critique of the discipline of Hispanic studies itself (one which nonetheless may be a contributing factor—see, for example, work by Faber; Resina). Instead, in this position paper, as editors of the Arizona Journal of Hispanic Cultural Studies we reiterate the need for journal editors to play a more active role in the review process, for peer-reviewers to grapple more extensively with submissions, for journals to have an explicit editorial vision that may serve as a standard against which to make tough decisions, and for [End Page 11] the increased priority of peer-review to serve as a space in which junior faculty can refine their scholarly writing.

In point of fact, there has been much written of late regarding journal editing in the humanities; as evidenced in a special section of the 2009 issue of Profession, where no fewer than 11 essays were collected as a way of reporting on “The Profession of Journal Editing and the Intellectual Life of the Academy” (105–79). Of all the journals taking part in that print conversation, not a single journal was from Hispanic studies and only one was a journal of cultural studies.1 This omission, of course, does nothing to mitigate the effects of what should serve as a set of timely and relevant reminders. For example, the first contribution to that section notes the silence surrounding the process of editing a journal and suggests that “it is now time for editors to say more to the academic community at large about their hopes, ambitions, experiences, ideals” (Argersinger and Cornett 105, 106). The section as a whole is a concerted (and welcome) attempt to demystify the process of editing a journal, and to portray journal editors as “warm-blooded beings intent on helping colleagues bring their scholarship to light in its strongest form,” emphasizing “that editing at its best is collaborative, community-oriented, knowledge-building work” (ibid. 106). Editors, as a number of those essays make clear, necessarily have a role to play in assuring a healthy publishing climate (Argersinger and Cornett; Luey), in fostering interdisciplinarity (Luey; Spieldel and Charon), and in recognizing the contributions of minority cultures (Salum). All this, of course, to make the case that editors are much more than what one contribution called (nevertheless appropriately signaling the intellectual character of all editing) “the architects of the written word” (Brown 121). It is necessary to point out that such discussions on the role of editors in peer-review continue to unfold: whether at more recent MLA Conventions, on the Editor L listserv to which many editors of learned journals subscribe and most certainly in language and literature departments across the globe.

We regard one role of journal editors (mentioned that section of Profession 2009) as particularly important. In her essay “The Profession of Journal Editing,” Beth Luey draws attention to the fact that editors are undoubtedly (in part) responsible for supporting (or neglecting) new directions in the field. She writes of the difficulties surrounding the publishing activities of women’s studies...

pdf

Share