|Appears in Collections:||Literature and Languages Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||DIY Peer Review and Monograph Publishing in the Arts and Humanities (Forthcoming/Available Online)|
|Citation:||Butchard D, Rowberry S & Squires C (2018) DIY Peer Review and Monograph Publishing in the Arts and Humanities (Forthcoming/Available Online). Convergence. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856518780456.|
Peer Review Study for Future of the Academic Book
|Abstract:||In order to explore monograph peer review in the Arts and Humanities, this article introduces and discusses an applied example, examining the route to publication of Danielle Fuller and DeNel Rehberg Sedo’s Reading Beyond the Book: The Social Practices of Contemporary Literary Culture (2013). The book’s co-authors supplemented the traditional “blind” peer review system with a range of practices including the informal, DIY review of colleagues and “clever friends,” as well as using the feedback derived from grant applications, journal articles, and book chapters. The article “explodes” the book into a series of documents and non-linear processes to demonstrate the significance of the various forms of feedback to the development of Fuller and Rehberg Sedo’s monograph. The analysis reveals substantial differences between book and article peer review processes, including an emphasis on marketing in review forms and the pressures to publish, that the co-authors navigated through the introduction of “clever friends” to the review processes. These findings, drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS), demonstrate how such a research methodology can identify how knowledge is constructed in the Arts and Humanities, and potential implications for the valuation of research processes and collaborations.|
|Rights:||Squires C, Rowberry S & Butchard D, DIY Peer Review and Monograph Publishing in the Arts and Humanities, Convergence (Forthcoming). Copyright © Authors 2018. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.|
|Figure 2.png||Fulltext - Accepted Version; : Figure 2||65.42 kB||image/png|
|Figure 1.png||Fulltext - Accepted Version; : Figure 1||16.86 kB||image/png|
|DIY Peer Review and Monograph Publishing_acceptedversion.pdf||Fulltext - Accepted Version; : Accepted manuscript||330.7 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.