On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > And don't be silly. This is no very profound question. Academic publishing > is simply part of the job. Some of it is more than that, but that is > another > question. > > The bulk of it is overwhelming. And most of it is not very good, but this > is > not necessarily the fault of the writers. They really do have to publish > (in > peer reviewed journals) to survive, just as factory workers have to punch > the time clock. > > That is just a start, but a discussion of academic publishing that doesn't' > start there is on some other subject. >
Sorry no, "academic publishing" is not just a part of someone's job. It is partly that, but you choose in your framing to make it the "essence" of the thing. First of all the term "academic publishing" is poorly chosen and probably loaded to make it sound derogatory instead of say, "scholarly publishing". You explicitly defined "academic publishing" to exclude adjuncts and in the very next paragraph complain that the enterprise does not include adjuncts when the only person excluding them was you, by your slanted definition of the term. Second of all, your definition makes no sense historically. Promotion and tenure are a phenomenon of the 20'th century. My point is that you are deliberately framing this in a cynical way that is not justified by an objective reading, and then you come to predetermined conclusions. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
