All 11 entries tagged Articles, Exchanges Reflections: Interdisciplinary Editor Insights

December 03, 2024

(Re)Defining the Kinds of Articles We Love to Consider for Publication

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/about/submissions

The Chief Editor takes a moment to unpick the broad range of articles which the research journal is keen to consider – and tackles the question of interdisciplinarity too.

An oft asked question by prospective authors, is the kinds of articles we like to receive. The simple answer is ‘pretty much any well-written research, research adjacent or practitioner paper which appeals to a cross-disciplinary audience.’ Drawing guidance from our own policies page this has long been expressed as a submission policy as follows:

The journal normally accepts high-quality research and review manuscripts, alongside less formal and shorter interviews and critical reviews. Accepted manuscripts will be published on the understanding that they are an original and previously unpublished piece of work…manuscripts should be written with an expectation they will be read by a broad academic readership, rather than a niche, sectoral subset. Consequently, authors should assume less conceptual familiarity than when writing for audiences within their own disciplinary traditions. Submitted manuscripts adjudged to address topics for too narrow an audience, may be declined.

Let’s unpick that a little, and highlight some of the key points about making your manuscript ‘Exchanges worthy’:

Formats: Firstly, we consider work submitted under a number of formats – principally peer-reviewed research articles, and shorter editorially reviewed articles. There’s a variance in the basic word count to note here, but also in terms of the speed to publication and degree of editorial scrutiny different formats undergo. Editorially reviewed pieces also offer a wider freedom in terms of authorial voice, and are an excellent way to kick off a dialogue without contrasting your writing into a prescribed style. Many special issues comprise them heavily too, as the faster turnaround to publication is often seen as very desirable. Incidentally, many of our most downloaded and cited articles come under the editorially reviewed heading each year. However, we love peer-reviewed pieces too, and while they take longer, do let us work closely with authors over a longer period in hopefully refining their work for final publication suitability.

Scholarship: Secondly, we expect articles to hit a certain level of professional scholarship. While we consider papers from researchers, we also have and continue to be happy to take papers from professionals, practitioners and people working in research adjacent roles. We’ve also published papers from taught students too from time to time, although they’re not normally the community we target as potential authors. All articles though will be scrutinized and as much as possible held to the same quality bar. This does mean we turn down (decline) some articles which in our opinion don’t meet this requirement, but we always proffer advice on how they could be improved, reworked or rewritten to overcome any deficiencies. I am pleased to say many of our declined authors do return new versions to us for consideration at a later point.

Originality: Thirdly, yes originality matters too. We take a view that ‘previously formally published works’, falling under the ‘Ingelfinger Rule’ are out of contention. However, if you’re reworking a blog post, thesis chapter or similarly shared but not editorially scrutinized piece into a new article, chances are we’ll be fine with that. Although, as all new submissions are scanned for originality, there might be the odd question from me before we can move forward. I probably get more excited by articles which tackle topics we’ve never seen in our pages before, or which resonate with earlier publications, but that’s more a personal taste issue. Provided your piece is original and scholarly, you’ve a very good chance we’ll consider it. Minor hint: if it is a reworking of a thesis or dissertation chapter, be prepared to adjust the language and writing so the manuscript stands along as a discrete piece of writing. And please make sure the opening line doesn’t read ‘In this chapter…’ as a number of pieces I see each do!

Readership: Fourthly, there’s readership, and I confess this is probably one of the two most nebulous conceptions. Exchanges has always been published to address the interests of a broad, academic or well-informed, scholarly audience in all disciplines – not just one. Many of our authors, especially early career researchers, are finely trained to write…but to write exclusively for their disciplinary peers. One of the most common reasons papers are declined early in the editorial cycle is because they are too tightly addressed to a small range of scholars.[1] Naturally, any tight-topic focus can be a bit of an issue for the potential success of the submitted manuscript, given we expect articles to be read by a broad academic audience. Now this doesn’t mean that, say, an article on quantum loop gravity needs to be understandable to a historian, but we’d expect others in the sciences and even numeric social sciences will be able to gain knowledge from it. Generally, we tackle this during the review phase, but authors can help us to help themselves by ensuring they unpick any key terminology. The words of advice I most commonly offer to prospective authors in this regard is ‘write as if you were addressing a university wide research conference’ as a way to overcome this challenge.

Interdisciplinarity: Finally, there this is the other nebulous concept which is implicit in our title and one which I suspect actually puts off some of our potential early career authors: interdisciplinary. Originally, back in 2013, Exchanges was keen for papers which were explicitly interdisciplinary or which adopted interdisciplinary methods, methodologies or working practices. Or for those which drew on a team of authors from multiple, potentially non-adjacent, disciplinary traditions, by way of contrast. Don’t get me wrong, we still adore seeing papers like this submitted for our consideration [2], but as time went by a de facto policy became an explicit one once I came aboard to consider any paper from any discipline – so long as it is addressed to that broad readership (see above!).[3] I’m working on a more clearly defined statement to this end to appear on our policy pages in the coming months, as I feel while it’s something I’ve espoused to many would-be authors, I don’t think it’s really clear enough on the website. Perhaps another way to state it is ‘we will consider any credible, original, scholarly article within our chosen formats – and especially those displaying interdisciplinary thinking.’ Thus, if you have an idea for an article, which fits in the other criteria above, but perhaps doesn’t feel ‘interdisciplinary’ – chances are we would be keen to consider it. [4]

So, there you are in short, to provide us with an article which Exchanges be more likely to take on for review consideration as an author make sure it (a) fits our formats, (b) is scholarly and original and (c) is written for and appeals to a broad audience. If you’re an early career scholar, all the better, but this, along with any interdisciplinary aspirations of the piece, aren’t prequisities. Writing and submit a solid, accessible and engaging piece, located within a single discipline is as likely to be taken to review, as much as a piece from multiple disciplinary traditions will.[5]

You'll find our submissions page here#mce_temp_url# - and as always, get in touch with any specific questions or comments, but in the meantime, happy writing.

---

Endnotes

[1] Economic papers in particular to this sort of issue - oddly a phenomenon seems to be something I hear other interdisciplinary journal editors experience, so we’re not alone in this. Maybe it’s the mathematical approach? To my memory we’ve only ever had one mathematics papers to Exchanges, long ago, so the sample is too small to consider if this is at the root of the issue.

[2] Even if they can prove a bit more of a headache to locate, recruit and assign to willing reviewers. Afterall, if a paper is interdisciplinary, who exactly is the right person to review it other than the author(s) who submitted it in the first place? Answers on a neatly formatted review report please.

[3] I have always explained, it is our broad collection of articles, from a range of disciplines, which today forms our interdisciplinary assemblage – rather than the discrete individual articles. I feel this gives authors an easier time in creating thought provoking and informative writing for us. Perhaps if we were overwhelmed by articles we might rethink this approach. However, I don’t foresee this being a potentiality any time in the next few years.

[4] On a macro level, the range of special issue topics while themselves more disciplinary niche (but fulfilling the broad-readership goal) form their own loci of interdisciplinarity when read as a collection.

[5] Even if the latter might gladden my editorial heart just a tiny bit more.

Gareth Johnson : 03 Dec 2024 10:48 | Tags: Advice Articles Author Manuscript New Policy Submission | Comments (0) | Close comments | Report a problem

January 10, 2024

Most Downloaded Articles of 2023

Follow-up to Top of the Articles: Exchanges’ Most Downloaded Articles 2022 from Exchanges Reflections: Interdisciplinary Editor Insights

The annual review of the most downloaded articles brings some new surprises and old favourites to the fore.

Welcome to 2024, a year which I suspect will be both a busy one and evolutionary one for the journal. As it traditional now, I like to start the new year by looking back at those articles which have been the most heavily accessed in the past year on the Exchanges site [1]. I always run off a report drawing this information together each October/November for our departmental IAS annual report. Naturally though, that doesn’t take into account those readers who might spend their winter holidays reading the journal! [2]. Hence, what follows is the definitive most accessed chart for the past year on Exchanges.

The following are based on downloads of the final article PDFs, rather than accesses to the top-level landing (summary) page. Consequently, they represent how many times the actual article itself has been accessed by readers.

Position	Article	Year: Volume (Issue)	2022 Position	Type
1	Fedotov, Critical Analysis of the Electric Vehicle Industry: Five forces and strategic action fields.	2022: 10(1)	#8	Article
2	Braddy, Utilizing the Octothorpe (#): Schizoanalytic cartographies recognized in War Games.	2022: 9(2)	New Entry	Article
3	Lewis, The Simultaneity of Loneliness and Popularity in Dear Evan Hansen.	2022: 9(3)	New Entry	Article
4	de Leeuw, 'A kiss is the beginning of cannibalism': Julia Ducournau’s Raw and Bataillean Horror.	2020: 7(2)	#3	Article
5	Benhamou et al., From the Advent of Multiculturalism to the Elision of Race: The Representation of Race Relations in Disney Animated Features (1995-2009)	2014: 2(1)	#2	Criticial Reflection
6	Varwell, A Literature Review of Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation: Lessons for contemporary student engagement.	2022: 10(1)	New Entry	Review Article
7	Price et al., Multispecies, More-Than-Human, Nonhuman, Other-Than-Human: Reimagining idioms of animacy in an age of planetary unmaking.	2023: 10(2)	New Entry	Conversation
8	Schaper, Conquering the Meatspace: The lonely nerd in David Fincher’s The Social Network (2010) and Baran bo Odar’s Who Am I (2014).	2022: 9(3)	New Entry	Article
9	Opaluwah, Participatory Development: A Tool of Pedagogy.	2016: 4(1)	New Entry	Review Article
10	Khair Allah, Review: The Body in Twilight: Representation of the Human Body, Sexuality and Struggle in Contemporary Arab Art.	2023: 11(1)	New Entry	Book Review

Looking at the chart I can see how once again we have a very healthy range of new entries appearing. Many of these are from the past two years of Exchanges’ publications, with perhaps a smaller than normal smattering of old ‘classics’ in the list. That said, last year’s #8 has leapt up – considerably – to become our number one most accessed article of 2023. A round of applause for that article and its author! [3] It was also nice to see our newest submission format (book reviews) having a day in the sunshine with one of these articles popping up in our top 10 for 2023. I think that clearly demonstrates this kind of article is a welcome addition to Exchanges, from our readers' perspective.

You can check out the statistics for yourself this and every article if you are interested – we always make the last 12 months of information publicly available. It is, you will see, a long way clear of the second placed article – which indicates a very healthy and laudable level of readership.

In contrast to last year where there was a fine balance between peer-reviewed and editorially reviewed formats, this year the top 10 chart is very heavily dominated by peer-reviewed publications (7:3): which must be very rewarding for authors and reviewers alike given the long hours they will have worked on these pieces. That isn’t to say it isn’t challenging to get one of the editorially-reviewed pieces into print, but it is a much longer labour for the peer-reviewed texts!

Will any of these articles appear in 2024’s most downloaded articles chart? I bet a couple at least will, but we shall have to see what this year brings. With potentially 5 new issues of Exchanges scheduled for publication this year, all bets for now are well and truly off. We shall have to see who next year’s top dogs are in another 365 or so days. [4]

---

Endnotes

[1] I did give away a few hard copies of the journal, but not to any degree that would have impacted on these statistics.

[2] I am not entirely kidding – I know we had an article submission on Christmas eve for example, long after I’d ‘downed tools’ for the year.

[3] I should note the author did an excellent job of sharing their article on social media over a protracted period last year, which I suspect helped them no end. My advice to authors – never be shy of sharing your research publications via your socials!!!

[4] There are an estimated 60-70 articles anticipated to appear across these issues, so there will be a lot of competition.

Gareth Johnson : 10 Jan 2024 11:02 | Tags: Articles Charts Download High Metrics Popular Scores Top | Comments (0) | Close comments | Report a problem

January 13, 2023

January 18, 2022

Looking Back at 2021: Most Downloaded Articles

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/

We continue our look back to last year, and see what the 10 most downloaded articles were.

Continuing on from our last post, where we looked at podcast listening figures in 2021, this time we come to the heart of our operations. That’s right, it’s time for the Top 10 most downloaded articles on Exchanges in 2021. This chart is based on downloads of the articles themselves, rather than those individuals only visiting the landing page for each article – so is the closest figures we have to indicate the number of readers.

You can of course see 2020’s scores here.

For interest, I’ve also indicated where any of the following items appeared in 2020’s chart, or if they are making a new appearance this year. So, without any more delay – here are the values for 2021.

Rank	Article Title	Issue	Type	2020 Position
1	From the Advent of Multiculturalism to the Elision of Race: The Representation of Race Relations in Disney Animated Features (1995-2009)	2(1) Oct-14	Critical Reflection	#2
2	Gamestop	8(3) Apr-21	Critical Reflection	New Entry
3	'A kiss is the beginning of cannibalism'	7(2) Jan-20	Article	#8
4	Current Trends in Natural Products Research from the CBNP10 Symposium at Warwick	4(1) Oct-16	Critical Reflection	New Entry
5	Re-performing Design	8(1) Oct-20	Article	New Entry
6	Myths of Male Same-Sex Love in the Art of the Italian Renaissance	3(1) Sep-15	Article	#4
7	Interrogating Practices of Gender, Religion and Nationalism in the Representation of Muslim Women in Bollywood: Contexts of Change, Sites of Continuity	2(2) Apr-15	Article	New Entry
8	Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?	8(2) Apr-21	Article	New Entry
9	Participatory Development: A Tool of Pedagogy	4(1) Oct-16	Review Article	#6
10	‘The Sagacity of Words’	8(3) May-21	Article	New Entry

Two things spring out immediately looking at these results in contrast with last year. Firstly, we have no fewer than 6 articles which are new entries in the top ten. Perhaps more significantly through, four of these new entries were published in 2021, meaning that in even a few short months they’ve been able to climb the league table alongside perennial highly read items. I am also pleased to see at least two of these items were ones for which there are accompanying podcast episodes. Did the podcasts help improve their readership? Possibly, although I couldn’t say for certain – I’d like to think they did though!

Our congratulations to all the authors of these titles.

That’s it for this year’s look back, but by next year we hope to have introduced a new level of metrics for all our articles. It’s currently undergoing testing but with any luck, by January 2023 we’ll be able to share a different dimension of usage and discussion relating to all our articles. Keep your eye on this blog for details as and when we launch this service publicly!

Gareth Johnson : 18 Jan 2022 11:41 | Tags: 2021 Articles Charts Downloaded Metrics Most Read Statistics Top | Comments (0) | Close comments | Report a problem

June 17, 2021

It’s so funny, how we don’t talk anymore…

Writing about web page https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/postdocs/accolade/calendar/summer/#story8

I was speaking today as part of the IAS’ Accolade programme in an AMA (ask me anything) segment about the journal and the podcast. There was an excellent question from the audience about the different formats we accept for publication, and I waxed lyrical for a while about interviews. Hence, I thought it was perhaps worth capturing some of the points of interest for future authors.

Interviews, or conversations as they’re termed in the journal, were very much Exchanges’ stock-in trade in the early years. If you look at those nascent years, you’ll see time and again interviews with significant figures and scholars cropping up in the pages. This was, in part, an artefact of the close association the journal enjoyed (and continues to) with the IAS’ fellows programme. Many of the participants would, as part of their research programme, arrange for a significant scholar to visit Warwick for a period, to engage with the local community and potentially spark an ongoing collaboration. During such visits, keen fellows would stage a recorded and transcribed interview with these visitors, which would then be submitted to Exchanges as a partial record of the engagement success.

In recent years, as the journal has consciously decoupled from Warwick somewhat as part of our move towards a greater internationalisation, these interview submissions have dropped away. It is not that they solely come from Warwick, but with our close organisational and operational links, I suspect we spurred more of our local scholars to produce them than the wider author community. I am racking my brain currently to think about the last time I actually had a conversation piece which we saw through to publication.[1]

Nevertheless, what I wrote in an earlier blog post about the value of these interviews/conversations stands. They are always highly read, often downloaded and very warmly received by the readership. They provide an accessible gateway into a subject area for scholars old and new alike, and do wonders for the authors in associating their names with that of their interview subject in print! They are also, relatively speaking, an easy format to create an article around and as such I remain surprised we don’t continue to get more of them. Compared to the weeks and months you’ll labour over a peer-reviewed article, a conversation piece [2] is a relatively easy ‘win’ to add to your publication record: while also making a valuable addition to the wider disciplinary discourse!

Which brings me to today and my discussions about formats for the journal. In the past we’ve generally had conversation articles which are comprises of a singular subject along with one or two interlocutors providing much-needed context, asking questions and steering the debate. It is a talking head format which works well, so well in fact that I’ll confess it forms the basis of The Exchanges Discourse’s configuration when we have guest speakers on the podcast. What we haven’t had though on the podcast or as interview papers in the journal are true discourses: that is, debates between a small coterie of speaking-heads in discussion. I’m know such discussions are frequent occurrences in formal and informal settings aplenty, not just at our home institution of Warwick, but within the various interdisciplinary-led early career researcher communities around the globe.

While part of me thinks such a format would be ideally suited to appear on our the podcast [3], I think such a discussion transcribed would also create an engaging, entertaining and informative article. If I’m being honest, I can almost see one now with three scholars: one drawn from within the STEM social science and arts and humanities disciplines apiece; debating what they envisage or perceive impactful and fruitful interdisciplinary research and practice to comprise.

Such a discussion represents a titular topic for the journal, but oddly not one with which we’ve ever had an interview specifically dealing. There are undoubtedly many other topics which might be debated in this collegiate manner as a conversation article for the journal. Certainly, I would strongly encourage anyone who is inspired by this idea to consider proposing or submitting it. Naturally, I stand ready, as always, to provide guidance and advice on the format, and to act as a sounding board for any potential authors considering such a submission.

Of course, we could take one step beyond this and actually have the discussions appear in both print AND as an episode of the podcast simultaneously. Now, this would not only enable readers and listeners alike to access the debate in whatever media format they preferred, but serve to link together these two key arms of the Exchanges operation. It seems, the more I think of it, as an idea whose time has come.

So, there’s my challenge to our readership and any budding authors out there: start thinking about a discussion topic or interview subject that could form a readable and valuable article for Exchanges next issue. They don’t take long and you’ve a few months ahead of our next scheduled October publication date to go through our editorial processes.

I look forward to hearing more about your thoughts, and even more so, reading any submissions.

---

[1] It wasn’t that long ago – Vol 7(3). But safe to say they have been submitted exceptionally rarely in the past two years.

[2] Or a critical reflection, if I’m being honest about the work involved.

[3] If you agree, and have or two like minded scholars, get in touch and let’s see if we can feature your discussions in an episode.

Gareth Johnson : 17 Jun 2021 17:42 | Tags: Advice Articles Authors Formats Interviews Journal Submissions | Comments (0) | Close comments | Report a problem

January 19, 2021

Top of the Exchanges Scholarly Pops 2020

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/

Last year might already feel a long time ago, which given the events it witnessed, might not be a bad thing. However, we’re not quite done looking back over what 2020 had for us here at Exchanges. Hence, once again, we’re delighted to bring you the top 10 articles based on the number of times they were downloaded by readers over the past calendar year. It’s notable looking at the table below, that while articles with a greater deal of maturity show up as retaining their popularity, many of the top articles last year were taken from three volumes of Exchanges we published in 2020. It’s especially wonderful to see that our number one article comes from our celebrated special issue from last January!

Rank	Article	Issue	2019
1	‘Funeral Baked Meats’	v7(2)	NE
2	From the Advent of Multiculturalism to the Elision of Race: The Representation of Race Relations in Disney Animated Features (1995-2009)	v2(1)	#3
3	Academic Fraud	v7(3)	NE
4	Myths of Male Same-Sex Love in the Art of the Italian Renaissance	v3(1)	#2
5	Tokens, Writing and (Ac)counting: A Conversation with Denise Schmandt-Besserat and Bill Maurer	v5(1)	#1
6	Participatory Development: A Tool of Pedagogy	v4(1)	#6
7	Consuming and Being Consumed	v7(2)	NE
8	'A kiss is the beginning of cannibalism'	v7(2)	NE
9	Forêt de Guerre: Natural remembrances of the Great War	v1(1)	NE
10	Global Environmental Liability: Multinational Corporations under Scrutiny	v1(2)	#4

Our thanks to all our authors, not only those who appear in this chart, and here’s hoping our various issues this year contain some pieces which similarly climb to the heights in the 2021 charts. For contrast, you might like to see what were the top articles in 2019 in my post from a year ago too.

Gareth Johnson : 19 Jan 2021 11:16 | Tags: Articles Charts Downloaded Metrics Most Read Statistics Top | Comments (0) | Close comments | Report a problem

May 21, 2020

Podcast: Episode 2

Writing about web page https://anchor.fm/exchangesias

Once again we're delighted to bring you another episode from our podcast. This time taking a look at the sorts of materials the journal considers for publication. Here's the episode details:

In this second episode, we look at the kinds of articles that the Exchanges interdisciplinary journal considers for publication, along with some guidance about what to think when writing them. The episode also lightly explores the difference between our peer reviewed and non-reviewed works.

Listen at: https://anchor.fm/exchangesias/episodes/For-Our-Consideration-eec8n6

Gareth Johnson : 21 May 2020 15:43 | Tags: Articles Submission Types | Comments (0) | Close comments | Report a problem

February 04, 2020

Special Issue on Cannibalism Published

Writing about web page https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2

I’m delighted to announce that we have published our first special issue, after a year of preparatory work behind the scenes. I couldn’t be happier with the way the issue has turned out, not least of which the fact that this is the BIGGEST ever issue we’ve published. By my calculations this issue contains 63% more peer-reviewed articles than its nearest comparator (v5.1 fact fans), and fully 38% more total pages than our previous longest issue (way back to v2.1). It’s also, incidentally, the fifth issue to come our under my stewardship, one more than any previous lead editor’s stewardship, so I’ll be basking in that minor glory for a few days at least.

If you haven’t yet had the opportunity to read the special issue, I’d strongly encourage you to do so. This is a really fascinating issue, on a topic I confess I’ve given very little thought to personally, before working on the collection. Nevertheless, there are some corking pieces in there and as you’ll see in the editorial, I’ve a few favourites among them. That’s not to denigrate the other pieces, which have all passed successfully through our rigorous quality filter and are filled with fascinating insight, but rather purely personal taste.

Maybe I shouldn’t mention taste in an issue on cannibalistic issues?

Nevertheless, the next week or so will see the usual post-publication activities of promoting the issue and each article as widely as possible. For ease of viewing, here’s a table of contents (TOC) for the issue.

Shorland, A., 'Bites here and there': Literal and Metaphorical Cannibalism Across Disciplines Conference Review. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.550

Ramos-Velasquez, V.M., Anthropophagic Re-Manifesto for the Digital Age: 10th Anniversary Rendition. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.465

Frost, D., ‘Provisions being scarce and pale death drawing nigh, / They'd try to cast lots to see who should die’: The Justification of Shipwreck Cannibalism in Popular Balladry https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.459

D’Antonio, C.S., Consuming and Being Consumed: Cannibalism in the Consumerist Society of Margaret Atwood’s ‘The Edible Woman’ https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.446

Henderson, L., Anthropophagy of the Werewolf. An Eco-Feminist Analysis of Justine Larbalestier's Liar (2009). https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.402

Moran, T.F., The Camera Devoured: Cinematic Cannibalism in Pedro Costa’s Casa De Lava (1994). https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.461

Shames, D., Consumption from the Avant-Garde to the Silver Screen: Cannibalism, Fetish, and Profanation. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.466

Wheatley, M., For Fame and Fashion: The Cannibalism of Creatives in Chuck Palahniuk’s Haunted (2005) and Nicolas Winding Refn’s The Neon Demon (2016). https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.458

Jackson, K., Dejects and Cannibals: Postmodern Abjection in Ana Lily Amirpour's The Bad Batch. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.476

Alsop, J.S., ‘Funeral Baked Meats’: Cannibalism and Corpse Medicine in Hamlet. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.460.

Leta, M., Cannibal Basques: Magic, Cannibalism and Ethnography in the Works of Pierre de Lancre. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.408

Green, W.D., 'Such Violent Hands'. The Theme of Cannibalism and the Implications of Authorship in the 1623 Text of Titus Andronicus. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.462

Davis, H., ‘Monkey Meat’ and Metaphor in Shohei Ooka’s Fires on the Plain. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.457

De Leeuw, U., 'A kiss is the beginning of cannibalism': Julia Ducournau’s Raw and Bataillean Horror. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.463

Das, R., Haun-Maun-Khaun: A Postcolonial Reading of the Cannibals in Some Fairy Tales from Colonial Bengal. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.454

Johnson, G.J., 'But He Looked Suspiciously Well Fed': Editorial, Volume 7, Part 2. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v7i2.561

Phew. That really is quite the collection of work. And now if you’ll excuse me, I must return to catch up with the outstanding submissions for this issue, and the submissions for the next few issues of Exchanges. Safe to say, 2020 is off to a cracking start for the journal, and long may it continue.

Gareth Johnson : 04 Feb 2020 13:28 | Tags: Articles Cannibalism Issue Publication Special | Comments (0) | Close comments | Report a problem

January 15, 2019

New Year, New Content

I hope everyone had a lovely Christmas/winter [1] break. This is my fifth day back in the Exchanges saddle, although only my second one in the office due to conference attendance [2] and a spot of working from home. Always nice to be back at the IAS here in (currently not very) sunny Coventry though, as I find it’s a powerful and inspirational location at which to work.

My first day back on site last week was one filled with meetings, not least of which was our semi-regular departmental team meeting [3]. So packed with meetings in fact, that I actually forgot to take a lunch break – whoops! Two meetings that day standout in particular. The first was a long and perhaps rather rhizomal conversation with one of my editorial board (hello Marcos). It’s always a real pleasure to spend some time with my editors in person, and their generosity in talking about their own research, teaching, careers and lives represents a particular honour. Part of what Marcos and I were talking about though, were some ideas we’d sketched out before Christmas around some invited bilingual submissions for a future issue of Exchanges. I can say, it is (fairly) early days with regards to this, but I think it looks like there’s some genuine interest in this from our contacts, so it’s quite exciting.

Later in the day I also had the chance to chat at length with a visiting lecturer in critical safety systems (and oddly expert in Viking culture, literature and life), from the University of York. She’s an old friend of mine, and she’d taken the time between lectures to pop in for tea and a chat. Once again the topic of contributions to the journal came up, and quickly it emerged there was a sense her own students (home and abroad) could benefit from a guest appearance from yours truly to talk about the wonders of publishing with Exchanges. And maybe even contributing to the journal, as I’m sure they’d have some wonderful contributions to make. Fingers crossed something comes of this, as there’s nothing I like more than talking with post-graduate and early career researchers about publishing opportunities.

That was enough for one day, but I’ve been delighted since then again, as on Monday this week I received a further approach from some literature scholars wanting to explore publishing a special issue through Exchanges. I’m very much looking forward to some longer conversations about this next week, but if this and the bilingual issue come off, there’s a very exciting 2020 in terms of new content, original thought and valuable additions to the research discourse ahead of us.

All in all, I’m sure you’ll agree a great start to the new year. Don’t forget I’m always happy to talk to potential authors (or groups of authors) about future submissions, special issues or where academic publishing is going these days. Just drop me a line. In the meantime, I’m going back now to continue writing some new marketing material for Exchanges, and planning my communications for scholars workshop for next month.

[1] Or summer, if you’re part of my southern hemisphere readership/editorial team!

[2] Understanding the Social in a Digital Age, UEA, Norwich. Delightfully for once I wasn't speaking!

[3] Probably less of interest to readers, but all the same a very handy way to keep up with what’s going on here in the IAS

Gareth Johnson : 15 Jan 2019 14:36 | Tags: Articles Content Issues New Publishing Special Submissions | Comments (0) | Close comments | Report a problem

December 12, 2018

Article Focus On: Critical reflections – what’s their value?

In my last post I talked about interviews, or the Conversations with, series of articles that we publish in Exchanges. In today’s post, I’m going to talk about the other kind of article which stands alongside the more research intensive pieces in the journal: critical reflections. According to our author guide a critical reflection article comprises:

Focussed, critical appraisals typically covering an area of emerging research, a key event or a crucial new text. (1,000-3,000 words).

That’s not a long explanation for what are actually highly readable and insightful articles, so let me expand a little here. When people approach us with a critical appraisal article, most commonly they want to write about an event they have recently attended. This is a great start, as we are all interested in reading about conferences, workshops, seminars and symposia others have attended which (for whatever reasons) we didn’t have the chance to. However, so far, so much a blog post. Where the critical reflection article differs is that they are not intended to be a simple narrative of what was said and/or who spoke. Yes, this sort of contextual information is still an important part of the content, but where the critical reflection article takes a step forward towards being a more academic piece of writing is right there in the title.

Context - What are they?

In short, these pieces are supposed to entail a critical reflection about an event that is to say for example, what was it about the context, content and theme, which was of value or importance? Did the author agree with everything which was said or, from their own scholarly perspective, were there aspects that they wanted to take issue with or even wholesale challenge? Ideally too, there needs to be an element of how the event changed the author’s perspectives, thinking or knowledge. Essentially, how did it have an impact upon or affected them. Incorporating these evaluative and self-reflective elements is what changes an ‘event report’ from a tasty but ultimately unsatisfying intellectual snack, into a gourmet and rewarding scholarly treat. In short, this is what makes the paper a critical reflection.

Now, in the prior paragraph I’ve been writing about critical reflections of events. However, you will have noticed Exchanges is not only interested in critical reflections on events, but on essentially any reflections on aspect of scholarship. Typically, what should stimulate the writing of a critical reflection is an intellectual intervention or encounter of any kind. I’ll acknowledge events are the most common or perhaps most prominent such circumstances. Yet, other artefacts or circumstances can move us as much, if not more sometimes. For example, you might have spoken with a particular author, or read a lot of their work lately, which has stimulated your thinking in new directions. Alternatively, you might have read a particularly challenging paper, report or monograph which has caused you to reconsider your own research practice. Writing a critical reflection concerning these ‘events’ can be therefore as valuable and timely a piece of written scholarship as writing about a literal event. Personally, with our engaged, broad and interdisciplinary readership in mind, I’d like to see far more critical reflections about non-conference type events appearing in our pages.

The last kind of critical reflection is perhaps less easy to predefine, at least structurally, and that’s the opinion piece. For example, as a scholar there might not be a singular specific event or work you’re looking to critique. What you want to offer instead is your own, unique insight into an aspect of your discipline. In this respect, here is where Exchanges can be a most valuable publication destination especially for those scholars in the STEM subjects, where opinion pieces are less commonly accepted in major journals. Certainly, many major journals may perceive early career researchers have more ‘limited’ disciplinary experience and insight to offer, and may decline to publish such submissions as a matter of course. Here at Exchanges, we’d respectfully disagree with this stance, as per our mission, we strongly believe that new, original and insightful thought which critically reflects on a field can emerge from scholars at any stage in their career. Hence, as Editor-in-Chief I’d strongly encourage anyone who’d like to ‘make a scholarly statement’ about their field, to consider writing it as a critical reflection for us.

Criticial Reflection Advantages

One advantage of the critical reflection piece by the way, is that they are mercifully brief pieces of work, which means they can be written, edited and ready for publication quite rapidly. They can be almost as brief as this blog post in length, in fact! Naturally, the manuscript should include the context and set the scene, as with all our articles, remember you are writing for a readership which doesn’t automatically have a deep familiarity with your field. Nevertheless, this should not diminish the depth or breadth of scholarship which can be included. Have a look at these recent examples, for an idea of the sort of things you might write about.

Eden, A.A., 2018. Enchanted Community: Reflections on Art, the Humanities and Public Engagement. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v6i1.252

Mulcahy, S., 2018. Dissents and Dispositions. Reflections on the Conference of the Law, Literature and Humanities Association of Australasia. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v5i2.247

Crealock-Ashurst, B., et al., 2018. A Critical Reflection on the 28th International Biology Olympiad. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v5i1.221

Messin, L.J., & Meadows, J.C., 2018. Science for All. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v4i1.153

Incidentally, a critical reflection can also act as a promotional piece. Not only for the author, but for institutions, research groups and projects, looking to raise their profiles. I really do believe these are exactly the sort of article which can really help to get a scholar noted. Hence, critically appraising some work you are intimately involved in, not only helps to develop your own career, but can serve as a valuable adjunct to other ongoing efforts.

In Conclusion

So, there you go. The critical appraisal, a valuable and relatively easy article type you can publish with Exchanges. And if you’re reading this and thinking you’ve got a great idea for one, either speak to myself or any of the Editorial Board about it. Or better yet, get writing and submitting – there’s every possibility critical reflections submitted in the first few months of 2019 can see publication in our spring issue of Exchanges! (possibly!)

Finally, on a personal note, I’m signing off as the Managing Editor-in-Chief for the Christmas break today. So can I wish all our readers, reviewers and authors (old and new) a most festive, relaxing and perhaps critically reflective break!

Gareth Johnson : 12 Dec 2018 17:44 | Tags: Articles Conferences Critical Events Exchanges Publicity Reflections Submissions | Comments (0) | Close comments | Report a problem

All 11 entries tagged Articles