Journals

Science and Literature in North and South Korea

coverimageThe most recent issue of the Journal of Korean Studies, “Science and Literature in North and South Korea,” edited by Christopher P. Hanscom and Dafna Zur, is now available.

This issue offers a groundbreaking framework for approaching the multilayered relations between literature and science both in Korea and in other sites in the modern world. Paying particular attention to the ways in which literature and science share a linguistic medium, the nine articles that comprise this special issue show how literature and science interconnect as modes of understanding and perceiving the world. This issue is a must-read not only for specialists in modern Korean literature but also for scholars of modern Korea working across all disciplines in the humanities and social sciences.

Browse the table-of-contents and read the introduction, made freely available.

Congratulations to MacArthur Fellow Wu Tsang

Congratulations to filmmaker and performance artist Wu Tsang on winning a 2018 MacArthur “Genius” Fellowship. Tsang is the co-author (with Fred Moten) of “Sudden Rise at a Given Tune,” the textual component of an eponymous performance by Tsang and Moten given at the Tate Modern, London on March 25, 2017. The text is featured in our journal South Atlantic Quarterly and is openly available for three months.

Tsang was the writer, director, and editor of—as well as a central character in—the 2012 feature film Wildness, which was reviewed in Transgender Studies Quarterly. Read the article here, where it is openly available for three months. She has also created a number of other films that have been exhibited or screened in many venues around the world.

The MacArthur Foundation praises Tsang for reimagining “racialized, gendered representations beyond the visible frame to encompass the multiple and shifting perspectives through which we experience the social realm.”

Watch a video of Tsang discussing her work:

On Meridians: An Interview with Ginetta E. B. Candelario and Leslie Marie Aguilar

We are proud to be the new publisher of Meridians: feminism, race, and transnationalism. “Black Lives Matter” (volume 17, issue 1), the first issue published by Duke University Press, is now availablecoverimage. We recently sat down with editor Ginetta E. B. Candelario, Professor of Sociology and Latin American & Latino/a Studies at Smith College, and editorial assistant Leslie Marie Aguilar to discuss their vision for the journal’s future.

DUP: Tell us a bit about the journal’s mission.

GinettaMeridians was founded almost twenty years ago now, explicitly with the mandate and mission to publish scholarship by and about women of color, feminisms, and transnationalisms. Therefore, our philosophy is to offer a venue for interdisciplinary scholarship focused on the intersections of gender, race, sexuality, class, citizenship, etc. not only in the United States, but also, more broadly, transnationally and internationally. This is connected to supporting and growing the pipeline of women of color scholars and knowledge producers who are woefully underrepresented in the US academy, often in part because the questions they ask, the methodologies they use, and their theories are not status-quo-maintaining questions, methodologies, and theories. Which means that prior to Meridians, there were very few traditional disciplinary journals that were interested in their work, or that would recognize the value of the work they were doing. So like Signs, Feminist Studies, and so forth, Meridians had a broader demographic and professional development vision.

However, unlike those other feminist publications, we have always been intersectional. From the beginning, we were interested in thinking about race, nation, and transnationalism. Accordingly, our editorial philosophy is to showcase work that is fundamentally interdisciplinary, even if it’s being produced by scholars, such as myself, who might also have a disciplinary home. I’m a sociologist who is also a Latin Americanist, a Latin@ studies scholar, and a women’s studies scholar. I embrace my sociology identity, but I have never published in a sociology journal, and I probably wouldn’t, because it’s typically not a welcoming intellectual space or a home for the kind of work that I’m interested in doing.

We think women of color epistemologies are expressed through multiple genres. Meridians is unique in the sense that it offers a space for both evidence-based, research-based scholarship alongside creative and cultural work—everything from poetry to visual images, whether it’s photography, or paintings, or one-dimensional reproductions of three-dimensional works, to memoir and creative non-fiction kinds of work. We view each of these genres as equally valuable forms of knowledge. In any given issue, you’ll see a research-based piece followed by a poem that is speaking to similar or related concerns that the research piece is exploring in another way. So the philosophy then is really to showcase women of color knowledge production in all these genres and all these forms.

Leslie: This philosophy also drives our desire to increase creative writing as a key component of Meridians. Part of my being brought on board, as a poet, was to vet creative writing and poetry submissions, but it was also to increase Meridians’s visibility within my own networks and within the larger group of activist artists as well. Bridging the gap that typically exists between scholars, activists, and artists is what we’re hoping to accomplish with Meridians. I think that’s a great way that our roles complement one another—Ginetta is the scholar and I’m the creative writer.

So even on our masthead, it’s apparent that we’re trying to create and curate an intersectional space for knowledge production. That’s our vision moving forward, to braid all of these ideas in different forms of knowledge production into the cohesive project that is Meridians.

Moreover, we are committed to making the content of our journal as openly available as possible. Our recently redesigned website will showcase multimedia work related to our published content. So, for example, one of our contributors from 17:1 submitted a poem that is actually a spoken word piece. It’s one dimensional when it’s on the page; but instead of having the poem remain a static object, we invited the contributor to record herself performing the piece. We plan to host her recording on our website so that it is openly available to subscribers and would-be readers of the journal. This endeavor is meant to highlight the different ways our readership encounters the pieces published in Meridians. You don’t necessarily just have to experience them on the written page. There are different emotions elicited whether you are reading an article, or seeing a photograph, or hearing a spoken-word poem. So, in a lot of ways it’s an activist agenda.

DUP:  Ginetta, tell us about your role as editor and your overall goals for the publication.

Ginetta: I am the fourth faculty editor of the journal. However, I’ve been involved with Meridians from its inception actually, because I joined the faculty at Smith College just after Meridians was conceived, if you will, and was there when it was birthed on campus. It’s the brainchild, the baby, of what used to be the Women’s Studies program. The first editorial group was a collective of Smith faculty (whose names are listed on our masthead, by the way). From there they expanded into a Smith-Wesleyan collective because Wesleyan University Press agreed to publish Meridians. Thus, after I was published in Meridians Volume 1, Number 1, I became part of what was then the Smith-Wesleyan Editorial Group.

Now, as editor, my role is establishing the intellectual vision of the journal moving forward. I’m a Latin Americanist who also does Afro-diasporic work, a Latin@ studies scholar who does feminist work, and a women’s studies scholar who does woman of color work, so my networks are somewhat different than my predecessors. I am really interested in growing the existing transnational part of our journal’s mandate and, by extension, its multilingualism. Having languages other than English represented in our submissions, whether those are scholarly essays or creative work, is important to us. We are moving in that direction already.

DUP: What are some of the highlights over the past year in your role as editor?

Ginetta: We recently transitioned to Duke University Press, so our first year working together was really about closing out the relationship with our former publisher and fulfilling commitments. In some ways Leslie’s and my first issues were 16:1 and 16:2, but they didn’t feel like they were truly ours, because we were finishing someone else’s recipe. That’s why in my “Editor’s Introduction” to 17:1, I say that it really feels like our first issue—because we curated it fully, and those contributions came in under our editorship.

Another highlight is that we’ve reconstituted our Editorial Advisory Board into a Smith-Duke board to honor and celebrate the relationship with Duke University Press.

Finally, we also instituted the Paula J. Giddings Best Essay Award that we’ll be presenting for the first time at this year’s National Women’s Studies Association conference. Paula will be present to deliver the award to the junior scholar whose article was selected by our Editorial Advisory Board.

Leslie: Another highlight for the journal has been bringing back student internships and providing cocurricular opportunities for Smith College students. We are providing pathways to professionalization, consistent with Meridians’s mandate to mentor women of color. Reinstituting these internships is one way that we’re amplifying Smith’s mission to educate women of promise for lives of distinction, but also to diversify the pipeline for the larger publishing community. Seeing our interns blossom has been a highlight for me as their supervisor, and I am looking forward to seeing where they’ll go after having Meridians as a guide and a reference. That’s been something we’ve been really proud of this past year.

DUP: How do you see the journal evolving over the next few years?

Ginetta: A central agenda for us is to internationalize the transnational aspect of the journal. One of the things that we are moving to next, in terms of our priorities, is reconfiguring our Transnational Advisory Board so that half of the board comprises scholars, cultural workers, and knowledge producers located outside the United States, in the major regions of Africa, in the Indian subcontinent, in China, the Middle East, and the Asian Pacific Island area. Not only will they contribute to the work we’re doing, but Meridians will be visible in the worlds that these individuals are inhabiting as knowledge producers across the globe. The hope is not just that we will be part of the conversations that are happening in those places but also that folks producing there will send their submissions to us. That is one of our big agendas: growing our international presence and the presence of the international in our journal.

Leslie: Also, part of our forward vision is to highlight the founding goals of Meridians. This is evident in our decision to bring back subsections—“In the Archives,” “Counterpoint,” “Media Matters,” etc.—within the journal. There’s something sort of poetic in that choice, a retrospective looking back in order to see where we’re headed.

DUP: Tell me more about your first fully curated issue of Meridians.

Ginetta: “Black Lives Matter,” Volume 17, Number 1, is the first issue that we fully curated. It is a black women’s activism and resiliency issue, because that’s where we’re at in this historical moment. This issue both commemorates and historicizes the presence and work of these feminists in the US and elsewhere across the world and their ties to us—the fact that we are part of a broader international transnational feminist community of knowledge producers, and that we’ve been influencing one another and supporting one another. We’re trying to honor and commemorate while also sustain hope moving forward. We’re very excited about the issue.

DUP: Is there anything else that you’d like to share with our readers?

Leslie: We’re in the process of developing a creative writing award at the moment. If you’re accepted into the journal you’re automatically in the pool of applicants for this particular award. We’re still working on the finer details, but that’s where Meridians is hoping to go, in order to highlight the creative aspect of Meridians, and showcase it a bit more moving forward.

 

 

Health Politics and Policy Articles for your Fall Syllabus

coverimageAs the school year commences, we’re excited to share a sample syllabus with articles from the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. JHPPL focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health, past, present, and future.

We’ve identified a few articles that you might find especially useful as you prepare your fall semester syllabi:

The articles are all freely available for the next year.

Critical Crossroads: Erdogan and the Transformation of Turkey

med_29_3_coverThe most recent issue of Mediterranean Quarterly, “Critical Crossroads: Erdogan and the Transformation of Turkey,” edited by Kumru F. Toktamış and Isabel David, is now available.

Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has already established his place in history books, but the nature and the meaning of his legacy will be determined by researchers, intellectuals, scholars, and activists, people who observe, record, and study his leadership. In this issue, noteworthy scholars document and analyze the decline of a twenty-first century, democratically elected government into a domestically punitive and regionally aggressive authoritarian regime.

Browse the table-of-contents and read the introduction to the issue, made freely available.

The Novel and Neoliberalism

coverimageThe most recent issue of Novel, “The Novel and Neoliberalism,” edited by John Marx and Nancy Armstrong, is now available.

How has the form of the novel responded to the conditions now grouped under the term “neoliberalism”? These conditions have generated an explosion of narrative forms that make the past two decades one of the two or three most significant periods in the history of the novel. The contributors to this issue ask whether these formal innovations can be understood as an unprecedented break from the past or the latest chapter in a process that has been playing out over the past three centuries. In response to this question, they use a range of contemporary novels to consider whether conditions of multinational capitalism limit the novel’s ability to imagine a future beyond the limits of that world. Do novels that reject the option of an alternative world nevertheless reimagine the limits of multinational capitalism as the precondition for such a future? With these concerns in mind, contributors demonstrate how major contemporary novelists challenge national traditions of the novel both in the Anglophone West and across the Global South. This collective inquiry begins with a new essay by and interview with British novelist Tom McCarthy.

Browse the table-of-contents and read the introduction to the issue, made freely available.

Black Marriage

dif_29_2_coverThe most recent issue of differences, “Black Marriage,” edited by Ann duCille, is now available.

Marriage has been a contested term in African American studies. Contributors to this special issue address the subject of “black marriage,” broadly conceived and imaginatively considered from different vantage points. Historically, some scholars have maintained that the systematic enslavement of Africans completely undermined and effectively destroyed the institutions of heteropatriarchal marriage and family, while others have insisted that slaves found creative ways to be together, love each other, and build enduring conjugal relationships and family networks in spite of legal prohibitions against marriage, forced separations, and other hardships of the plantation system. Still others have pointed out that not all African Americans were slaves and that free black men and women formed stable marriages, fashioned strong nuclear and extended families, and established thriving black communities in antebellum cities in both the North and the South.

Against the backdrop of such scholarship, contributors look back to scholarly, legal, and literary treatments of the marriage question and address current concerns, from Beyoncé’s music and marriage to the issues of interracial coupling, marriage equality, and the much discussed decline in African American marriage rates.

Read the introduction, “Black Marriage and Meaning from Antoney and Isabella to ‘Beyoncé and Her Husband,'” made freely available.

978-1-4780-0048-8Ann duCille is also author of the new book Technicolored: Reflections on Race in the Time of TV. In it, she combines cultural critique with personal reflections on growing up with the new medium of TV to examine how televisual representations of African Americans have changed over the last sixty years. Whether explaining how watching Shirley Temple led her to question her own self-worth or how televisual representation functions as a form of racial profiling, duCille traces the real-life social and political repercussions of the portrayal and presence of African Americans on television.

978-0-8223-5008-8Also of interest is the book Inequalities of Love: College-Educated Black Women and the Barriers to Romance and Family by Averil Y. Clarke. While conventional wisdom suggests that all women, regardless of race, must sacrifice romance and family for advanced educations and professional careers, Clarke’s research reveals that educated black women’s disadvantages in romance and starting a family are consequences of a system of racial inequality and discrimination. Her discussion of the inequities that black women experience in romance highlights the connections between individuals’ sexual and reproductive decisions, their performance of professional or elite class identities, and the avoidance of racial stigma.

What’s Online Peer Review For? Guest Post by Stacy Lavin

It’s Peer Review Week, an annual event that brings together individuals, institutions, and organizations committed to sharing the central message that good peer review, whatever shape or form it might take, is critical to scholarly communications. We are pleased to share a guest post by Senior Managing Editor for Journals, Stacy Lavin.

You might look at the title to this post and think: Duh, it’s for peer review. Right? I mean, what is an online peer-review system but a digital version of the analog process that editorial offices have been following for centuries? All anachronisms (and attempts at catchy openers) aside, that’s exactly what I used to think. That is, it’s what I thought online peer review was for before I spent about four years acting as an intermediary between our journals’ editorial offices that use online peer review and the vendor for the system we use (Aries/Editorial Manager). In those four years, I’ve discovered that online peer review has the potential to do much more than streamline the work editorial offices do to vet and select content for publication. It has the potential not only to address the pain points of academic journal editors and their staff but also to serve the broader strategic interests of editorial offices, scholars, and publishers in less obvious ways.

As we’ve been reminded during Peer Review Week 2018, “good peer review, whatever shape or form it might take, is critical to scholarly communications.” This year’s Peer Review Week theme of diversity in peer review has, moreover, prompted us to consider the invisible and indirect barriers to “good peer review,” which resonates with the growing awareness of the importance of actively and systematically developing a culture of inclusion within the community of university presses. As Sandra Korn and Alejandra Mejía astutely observe, writing of their work to coordinate the student intern program in the Books Acquisitions department of Duke University Press, it “is vital to the intellectual work of publishing to have queer students, students of color, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and student activists engaging with the literature that is oftentimes theorizing the experiences of their communities.” Alice Meadows, writing just this morning, reminds us that while we’ve known for a while that scholarly publishing overall is an “overwhelmingly white and cis-female industry, with a leadership that is disproportionately white male dominated,” it is becoming clear that peer review is likewise “less diverse and more biased than it could or should be, which is hindering our efforts to ensure an inclusive, ethical, trustworthy scholarly communications ecosystem.”

Getting back to my opening thoughts about online peer review, I would add that cultivating an inclusive culture in all of the spheres of our work as a scholarly publishing community is one of the broader strategic interests that online peer-review systems have the potential to further. For instance, among the eight tactics Meadows recommends in her post as ways to tackle diversity and inclusion in peer review, two of them involve pillars of online peer-review systems: data and software. Tactic number six is “Collect the data.” While there has been limited progress in creating gender equity in referee populations, Meadows suggests that at the very least collecting the data is “a critical first step toward being able to understand, and ultimately resolve, the issue.” Tactic number seven is “Make use of available tools” like editorial management software that can “spot and reduce the risk of bias in the selection of reviewers.”

Now, you might be thinking peer-review systems are hardly built to address diversity and they’re often seen as pretty onerous to manage by users as it is. Good point. Let’s step back for a moment and consider that the main challenges that online peer-review systems originally aimed to address were ironically the high labor requirements of managing the processing and vetting of submissions—inviting reviewers, reminding reviewers, making decisions, sending decision letters, asking for revisions, reminding authors to send in revisions—not to mention increasing concern over reviewer availability and fatigue. Online peer-review systems stepped in to help solve some of these problems (automating reminders, etc.), while more avant-garde services have sought to streamline the work of reviewers themselves (Rubriq, etc.). While the automation and data tracking features of peer-review systems have been useful, reviewer fatigue has been a more elusive and possibly more critical challenge. For instance, there are journals who claim to practice blind review but then—passing the burden of finding a reviewer onto the contributor—require contributors not only to nominate a reviewer for their submission but also obtain the permission of that reviewer to nominate them (which I guess makes it not-so-blind review).

With online peer review, as is often the case with technology, solving some frustrations gave birth to new frustrations. The typical grievances are aversions to non-intuitive interfaces—the tinkering, system-admin-oriented environments where coders and likeminded folks feel right at home but others…don’t (I’ll leave it to Kent Anderson to articulate the way many users feel about manuscript tracking and submission systems). But that’s just one (solvable) problem representing only one facet of the massive capabilities these systems have the potential to materialize to help the scholarly publishing community facilitate a more inclusive peer review culture (not to mention more efficient editorial and production processes). In fact, I am convinced that the biggest opportunity of the current state of online peer-review is also a source of the biggest concerns users have: it can do so much more than they need. They’d prefer not having so many functions, options, buttons, or configurations. They don’t want to have to adapt their workflows to the system. The beauty of it is that they don’t have to. As Meadows notes, we can use existing features of these robust systems to pursue the multifaceted interests of the scholarly communications community. As well-funded companies recognize the value of and acquire online peer-review systems, those systems might become more flexible and capable of developing the tools we need to solve the more elusive problems of peer review like reviewer fatigue and making peer review more inclusive—in fact, solving the latter is key to solving the former. Likewise, established publishing vendors are adding peer review to their suite of services, seeking input from the academic publishing community on how to best meet their needs. Our voices as publishers and potential consumers of their expanded services will carry a lot of weight in those conversations, I would think. As I see it, our job in this climate of consolidation/expansion with respect to online peer-review software is to focus on what these systems can do to help us, not just our workflows but also our broader strategic interests, such as cultivating inclusion in all aspects of what we do. It’s not our job to adapt to these systems (they’re almost infinitely configurable) but theirs to adapt to us in our efforts to actively and systematically foster diversity in scholarly publishing.

Illinois Journal of Mathematics Joins Duke University Press

Duke University Press is pleased to announce that the Illinois Journal of Mathematics (IJM) will join its publishing program beginning in 2019. IJM is edited by Steven Bradlow and sponsored by the Department of Mathematics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

IJM was founded in 1957 by Reinhold Baer, Joseph L. Doob, Abraham Taub, George Whitehead, and Oscar Zariski.  The inaugural volume featured papers of many of the world’s leading figures in the key areas of mathematics at the time: William Feller, Paul Levy, and Paul Malliavin in probability theory; Richard Bellman, R. P. Boas, Jack Hale, and Edwin Hewitt in analysis; Marvin Marcus, Olga Taussky, and Oscar Zariski in algebra; and Paul Erdös, L. J. Mordell, and John Tate in number theory. Since then, IJM has published many influential papers, including the proof of the Four Color Conjecture by Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken.

The journal aims to disseminate at reasonable cost significant new, peer-reviewed results in all active areas of mathematics research. In addition to its regular editions it has published special volumes in honor of distinguished members of its host department including R. Baer, D. Burkholder, J. D’Angelo, J. Doob, P. Griffith, W. Haken, and P. Schupp. The journal’s editorial board, which counts distinguished mathematicians such as J. Bourgain, A. Calderon, S.S. Chern, H. Kesten, and K. Uhlenbeck among its past members, comprises a mix of preeminent mathematicians from within its host department and across the mathematical research establishment.

“We are proud to be associated with the outstanding Duke University Press mathematics publishing program and its flagship journal, the Duke Mathematical Journal,” said Steven Bradlow, Editor-in-Chief of IJM.

“Duke University Press is delighted to establish a partnership with the Department of Mathematics at UIUC to publish its long-established and highly regarded journal,” said Rob Dilworth, Journals Director at Duke University Press. “Positioned alongside the Duke Mathematical Journal and the other mathematics journals at Duke, we look forward to providing our expert mathematics publishing support to the editors as they and we work together to ensure that IJM continues to be a valuable resource to the entire mathematics research community.”

Duke University Press will start its publication of IJM with volume 63, which will feature a redesigned look. The first issue of the volume will be available spring of 2019. The journal will continue to be hosted online via Project Euclid.

Editorial Office of Duke Mathematical Journal Returns to Duke University

DMJ_167_11The Department of Mathematics, Duke University, and Duke University Press are pleased to announce that Richard Hain has been appointed managing editor for the Duke Mathematical Journal and that the journal’s editorial office will return to Duke University after more than 20 years at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where Jonathan Wahl has served as managing editor. Wahl will continue his involvement with the journal as co-managing editor through June 2019.

“Jonathan Wahl has done a fantastic job growing the journal, and we are excited that he will be handing it off to Dick Hain this year,” said Jonathan Mattingly, Chair of the Department of Mathematics at Duke University. “Hain is a versatile mathematician who brings a broad view of the subject. Having the journal back at Duke will facilitate more exciting collaborations between the department and the journal.”

Hain, Professor of Mathematics at Duke University, has focused his career on the study of the topology of complex algebraic varieties. He has published multiple books and journal articles and has received numerous awards. Hain earned a BS from the University of Sydney in Australia, an MA from the Australian National University, and a PhD from the University of Illinois.

Hain said, “I am looking forward to working with the editors and the staff of Duke University Press to maintain the Duke Mathematical Journal as one of the world’s leading mathematics journals. I would like to thank Jonathan Wahl for his hard work and commitment to the journal over the past 21 years.”

“We are excited for the Duke Mathematical Journal to return to Duke University,” said Steve Cohn, Director of Duke University Press. “DMJ is one of the leading journals in its field and I appreciate the work that Jonathan Wahl at UNC Chapel Hill did to grow its reputation. We’re looking forward to continuing to work with him in the first year of the journal’s transition back to Duke.”

The Duke Mathematical Journal, published by Duke University Press since its inception in 1935, found its origin within the inner circles of the American mathematical research community and is one of the top mathematics journals in the world. The journal has published work by 10 Abel Prize winners, 24 Fields Medalists, and 25 Wolf Prize winners. Its Impact Factor increased from 2.171 in 2016 to 2.317 in 2017.

Visit the journal’s homepage on Project Euclid to learn more.