I have a piece in the forthcoming American Archivist (same issue as the Boles piece), and it was peer reviewed to hell and back, twice. So, idk what happened here? They must have solicited this piece, right?
@sabrams Interesting thought. Either that or, is there ever a point where you're no longer subject to peer review? Like, after being president or becoming a fellow?
@jennifer Yeah, that’s a possibility. Either way, I assume his piece didn’t go through the normal process — for some reason.
@sabrams Yup. Not cool.
@sabrams my understanding from talking to someone who's been on the editorial board is that the normal process, if you're a regular editorial board member (i.e. not involved in choosing reviewers, coordinating issues, etc.), you just see the submissions assigned to you. So they had no prior notification of the pre-print but that's standard practice. I don't know if this is unusual among journals in general.
@andrewjbtw Hm, good to know! I’ve only been a ‘guest reviewer’ for a special web archiving edition of a journal, so I don’t know enough to know what’s standard. Will be curious to see if AA puts out a statement at some point.
digipres.club is a space for folks interested in productive conversations about, well, digital preservation! If you enjoy talking about how to do memory work with computers, or even with cardboard boxes of old photos, you belong with us on digipres.club. Many of us are/were Twitter users looking for an inclusive and community supported approach to social media. If any of these things sound good to you, consider joining us now.