Comments on: spirit of service

By: Shaun

Shaun — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 07:30:45 +0000

Thoughtful post, kemosabe. Methinks the distinct rhetorical functions of “Gatekeeping” and “Mentoring” should ideally (tho not always, and not even for everyone) be co-constitutive… some seems disciplinary while other helps the individual scholar. Plato’s erotics of mentoring, perhaps? Its about the love, baby, and some likes/gives it sweetly and some likes/gives the spanky spank S&M.

By: dhawhee

dhawhee — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:44:03 +0000

Generally, on the spirit of this post, I find this service-as-gift attitude refreshing, and a welcome change over the typical “what will it do for me?” approach to service. Bravo, D(Jx3)!

By: Joshie Juice

Joshie Juice — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:15:53 +0000

Mindster: perhaps you have baby bear's porridge here. I like the idea of nourishing even if you reject. I recognize re Gil's post that this takes much time, however (I usually write at least two pages of comments to authors; I have never done that dismissive one sentence or one paragraph thing). Most of the stuff I get does have a seed and only very rarely have I been sent the abject essay. But also lets not forget the unsolicited shout-out via email to stuff that piqued our interest. And since I've posted about the spirit of service, Debbalicious has a very persuasive post about why writing book reviews is important. I agree that, while in general juniors should not write book reviews, if there's a book that will be a major part of your dissertation or book project, you ought to review it anyway! All Hail Debbalicious, the new QJS book editor!

By: mindy

mindy — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:32:13 +0000

I also agree with the spirit of this, but that it does take something special and, well, professionally crafted (both in terms of style and content) to make it through my R and R filter. I tend to write very detailed and suggestion-filled reviews regardless of whether I encourage the editor to accept or reject an essay, however. I also hope that my efforts to remain supportive and kind in tone also succeed. Coming from PS (an even smaller playground, in some ways, than rhetorical studies…at least at the school of Communication studies…), I find myself often in the position to review manuscripts that are 4 or 5 hard drafts (IMHO) from publication that do, however, have a small seed of exciting material at their center that I want to nourish enough to grow because I have an investment in publication in my field. This may not mean I advise a resubmission, but it does mean that I take the time to help the author push their idea and essay forward. Dunno, I guess I still believe in doing unto others as you would have done to you…

By: slewfoot

slewfoot — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:39:01 +0000

That’s the spirit!

Fortunately, Gil, I don’t get as many bad manuscripts–almost everything has the core of a good idea (requiring massive revisions) or at least can be overhauled to “fit the vision.” I do reject the stuff that is “no fit” (e.g., I’ve been reviewing a lot of stuff from Britain and such–I mean, it’s not my job to socialize those folks, I agree). For me, the measure is how hard-add the editor wants to be–whether she sees her mission as pedegogical at all or not.

By: Revolution on a Stick » Something must be in the water

Revolution on a Stick » Something must be in the water — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:37:55 +0000

[...] Something must be in the water Not only do I suddenly find myself in a mini-blogging frenzy of my own (after way too long a gap) — three posts in four days? as if I’m Michael Bérubé or something? — but I also find myself piping up with quips and comments on other people’s blogs — and sometimes even doing so with more prose than I’m laying down in my own blogyard. [...]

By: Gil

Gil — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:26:09 +0000

I wanna agree with the spirit of this, but am not so sure about the letter of it. Maybe I’m just unlucky, but I know that 80% of what I’ve seen cross my inbox as a reviewer for various journals isn’t good enough to clear my revise-and-resubmit bar. I’d even go so far as to say that 80% of what I’ve been sent over the years has been fairly easy to just reject.

That’s not ’cause I want to be Mr. Hardass Gatekeeper. I’m happy to write encouraging revise-and-resubmit reviews whenever I can — hell, I wrote one of those just this morning — but I simply don’t see enough essays that are that promising. I see a fair number that might have a core of a good essay in them … but that need so much work to get there that they’ll be entirely new essays if that work happens. And I see even more that are so far off the mark — often in multiple directions at once — that I have to wonder whether the author’s ever actually seen an issue of the journal in question … ’cause any random issue would tell them that their project and the journal’s project aren’t in line at all.