After not attending for some time, I went to the AIA meeting in Chicago this past weekend. It was worse than I remember; almost every session was some variation on “Recent Fieldwork in Italy” or “3D Reconstructions of Something.” But I should have expected that. What really bothered me was a panel on peer review, which I attended only briefly. Yet in that time I heard several appalling things, of which I mention the two most heinous below.
- All of the panelists (made up of editors of journals and at academic presses) balked at the suggestion of paying for peer reviews. They insisted instead that they themselves were not paid for editing journals and that peer reviewing has its own rewards. I take issue with both of these points. First, journal editors are paid, in the sense that they are all tenured professors for whom this is part of their job description, the same way publishing scholarship. I, on the other hand, as an adjunct am literally only paid to teach. Second, while I agree that peer reviewing is good for me, what’s even better is to pay my bills. One editor said she was worried about exploiting contingent faculty. We’re already exploited! Paying us for peer review would be exploiting us a little less.
- One editor who shall remain nameless said that she only asked tenured faculty to review book proposals and manuscripts, on the grounds that they knew the process of publishing a monograph from personal experience. This may be the stupidest thing I heard anyone say that the conference, and since we’re talking about the AIA that is a pretty damning assessment. First, there are many, many professors who have received tenure without ever writing a book. Second, adjunct faculty write books too. I myself have published two, despite never having held a tenure-track job. Third, all this does is ensure that the press solicits the most conservative reactions possible. The last thing I want is for some silverback intent on protecting his turf to review my manuscript; instead, I want a reviewer who can recognize the cutting edge when she/he sees it. So I will not be submitting any proposals to the University of Michigan Press in the foreseeable future.
I didn’t say any of this in the panel itself, since no one listens to adjuncts, and I was late for a session on “Restating the Obvious.”