Talk:Boundary 2

For reference, this is what the page looked like before all this unwarranted archiving and deleting occurred: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boundary_2&oldid=500422226

Discussion about how this journal is closed to submissions

Just got sent a link here to this talk page and to the ones that were archived and I think there are some issues to be fleshed out before archival. In particular, I'd like to add something about how to discuss this journal's submissions policy on the man page. Evidently some WP editor's are seriously devoted to ensuring that this text not be seen, which is interesting in itself as it is on the talk page not the main page:

"boundary 2: an international journal of literature and culture is the triannual newsletter of Paul Bové’s social network. The publication was a standard scholarly journal until the early 2000s, when it stopped accepting submissions. The editor solicits texts from friends and colleagues, and one must have a social tie to the editor in order to participate. The invited submissions are sent out for reviews. The main objectives of the periodical involve identifying and analyzing tyrannies of thought.

The points should be nuanced but that text should be here on this page for others to discuss. There are also some issues that have been unduly archived that I would like to address:

What makes it "denigrating" and what sources beyond those already cited would be acceptable? (from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boundary_2&oldid=500422226)

I think the text is negative as many academics hold professional ethics in particular esteem. Asserting that the editorial team only solicits from friends and colleagues sounds preferential. (It might be said here though that it is also apparently the case.)

The fact that you are not answering (cannot?) the questions here posed does not this vandalism make. The article reads like propaganda. This post is attempting to improve it.

I partially agree. There is not anything incorrect about discussing how this publication is not a standard academic journal, and how its no-submissions policy shapes the outcome -- that being, who ultimately participates. This can and should be discussed here and possibly on the main page. Not doing so could be construed as misleading and a bit celebratory. It should be phrased, however, as with everything here, with care.

95.241.252.9 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• OK, you got a new IP (can we just do away with the fiction "I just got emailed, etc"?) Let me discuss just the first phrase of your proposed "improvement". You start with deleting the sourced fact that this is a "peer-reviewed academic journal", including the (highly respectable) source. You replace this by saying that this is a "newsletter", stating that the difference is semantic. Either you really believe this (in which case you should read and learn quite a bit more before coming back here) or you actually know better and then I don't need to explain why that is wrong. Finally, you insist on adding that this is the "newsletter" of the editor's "social network". As I have explained earlier, that is rubbish, of course, there is no evidence that the editor only invites acquintances and if you think that "as soon as he invites someone he only knows from their work, they become part of his social network" is a valid argument, you have a wonderful career ahead of you in debating the number of angels that can dance on a pin. I'm not even going to go into detail about the rest of your unsourced text. If you think that Steve Quinn's and my horrible misbehavior should be exposed, you're free to report us on the administrators noticeboard. Now please stop wasting everybody's time here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is how the discussion has developed, pasted from the archived version. I'll add comments at the end:

''The editor reads a text and then contacts the author--as soon as this occurs, the author is in the social network of the editor. As the entry reads, no texts come from outside the editor's social circle. Initiating contact makes no difference. 194.78.195.29 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And for each an d every journal, the editor is in contact with the authors, so according to your definition, every journal only publishes articles from authors in the editor's social circle. In any case, you are clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia and I'm done trying to talk to you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. Most journals receive submissions from anyone (whether or not s/he has a previous social contact with the editor). This is not the case with b2 and the others here mentioned. In the case of such a newsletter (academic-themed publication), if the author is unknown to the editor, there is no chance of publication 194.78.195.29 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No references currently listed would be removed from the page, which is clarified in the archived text.

b2 apparently does not receive "over the transom" submissions. The key point here above is that if an author is unknown to the editor, his or her work cannot be published. Call that the social network of the editor or call it something else. This publication practice differentiates b2 and the other journals listed from what could be understood as standard journals.

In a sense it is a semantic issue, though "newsletter" instead of "academic journal" is a bit of a stretch, as the texts are peer-reviewed. Those concepts should be in mind when revising the main page to make this clear. 95.241.252.9 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)