Opening Up "[in]Transition's" Open Peer-Review Process

[...]open peer review made the publishing process more of a conversation than a monologue, a model that better fit my own academic ethos. [...]the process of doing open review of a monograph is quite time consuming and daunting for most writers and is hard to scale into an ongoing set of projects. [...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cinema journal 2017-07, Vol.56 (4), p.137-141
Main Author: Mittell, Jason
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Blogs
Conversation
Essays
IN FOCUS: Videographic Criticism
Methods
Monologues
Motion pictures
Open access
Peer review
Scholarly publishing
Scholars
Writing
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:[...]open peer review made the publishing process more of a conversation than a monologue, a model that better fit my own academic ethos. [...]the process of doing open review of a monograph is quite time consuming and daunting for most writers and is hard to scale into an ongoing set of projects. [...]in 2013, when Drew Morton reached out to MediaCommons to propose starting a journal of video essays, I happily signed on to represent the site in the journal's development, specifically because I thought it would be ideal for innovative forms of open review. [...]traditional journal publishers are far worse at distribution and dissemination than blogs or other websites, and it is only because they adjudicate what "counts" as scholarship that they still matter-even me writing these words in Cinema Journal matters less for how the journal will make these thoughts accessible to readers than the validation that such conversations are happening in SCMS's official venue. Making the rationales as to why any given videographic piece functions as scholarship as visible and transparent as possible, signed by leading experts willing to stake their reputations on their assessments, is essential to the project of validation that [in]Transition has undertaken-we hope that anyone looking at a videographic publication to assess the author's academic merits will not only watch the video but also read the conversation between reviewers and the creator that is published alongside the videographic work. [...]I see the main job of [in]Transition not as publishing video essays but as generating and publishing the reviews and statements that accompany and frame every video.
ISSN:0009-7101
1527-2087
2578-4900
1527-2087
DOI:10.1353/cj.2017.0049