2010AGM >>

AGMMinutes2010

See also http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddbdrvnd_633dzm9dhgx

AGM Minutes 2010

12:15 to 1:15

June 2, 2010.

Molson Building, 14-250

Concordia University

Call to Order

1:20 p.m.

Present: David Mitchell (University of Calgary), Andrea Zeffiro (Concordia University), Valérie Belair-Gagnon (City University, London), James Compton (University of Western Ontario), Manon Niquette (Université de Laval), Barbara Crow (York University), Leslie Regan Shade (Concordia University), Rowly Lorimer (Simon Fraser University), Kim Sawchuk (Concordia University), Richard Smith (Simon Fraser University), Susan O’Donell (NRC), Kathleen Ann Cross (Simon Fraser University).

Adoption of Agenda

David moves to adopt, seconded by Leslie

Acceptance of the minutes of the last AGM Minutes 2009

Leslie: amendment “Becky Lentz, McGill? University”

Andrea makes note of amendment.

Move to adopt: All in favour.

Publisher’s Report (Smith 2010, Felczak 2010, Bittman 2010)

The journal is in sound financial and editorially shape.

The team is working very well across Montréal-Vancouver-St. Catherines. Things are moving very smoothly.

Our subscription revenues are all on the positive side.

Matt Soar is now the creative director and our look is improving. We’ve changed our font and purchased the heritage font.

We have very good printing services and quickly fixed botched covers.

Online:

Michael and Anne have been merging duplicate accounts that were left over from the old system.

It is now possible to purchase a one off article and we are looking to make this feasible for entire issue purchases.

We’re also working with Library Archives of Canada (LAC) in order to coordinate a system in which our editorial team can submit published articles to LAC with minimal effort.

We’ll be upgrading the current OJS system.

We’ve had a few more ads and hope to share more.

Treasurers Report (Lorimer 2010)

Our subscriptions and sales went up and we’re at our highest.

Anne has been targeting authors to subscribe to the journal and/or buy an issue. Anne has also been focusing on target communities for theme issue and the opportunity to sell within those communities. It pays off in the long run; once they are with us they stay.

Royalties sank by $6,000, however, $13,000 was a one time payment and royalties are holding steady

On the expense side we are doing very well and have expanded the number of pages substantially and are doing well to control costs there.

We are $990 shy of breaking even, which is not bad news as we have a considerable cushion. A slight deficit does not pose a problem.

David: Our cash assets in surplus of 116, 000

Rowly moved to adopt the report, Gertrude Robinson seconds.

Passes unanimously.

Editor’s Report (Sawchuk 2010)

We published 4 issues last year.

34.1 Reality TV (Bruce) 34.2 Rethinking PR (Greenberg/McKnight?) 33.3 Miscellaneous 33.4 Race, Ethnicity and Media (Harji/Karim)

3 were special issues and were guest edited but Kim still helps co-editors get through the process and is still heavily involved throughout.

Special issues can put a delay in production because the delay of one author with revisions can hold up an entire issue

We don’t want the communications community to think that we only do special issues, but these special issue have been able to get the CJC into places where it wouldn’t have been before, particularly in places not affiliated with academic environments, and we’re very proud of that. Anne does this research to see the possibilities for other libraries, but they are also to find us. This trend started two years ago with the health issue

34 peer reviews: 27 articles, 2 research in briefs, 1 speech, 2 commentary

Plus: 10 Reports, 1 Review essay, 1 RTable?, 22 book reviews, 1 IM

56 letters of decline

37% decline - - this rate will increase because we will not be publishing as many special issues, which target authors.

The next issue will come out soon.

We’ve also varied the types of pieces that we publish - - what are the genres of academic publications

45 papers in review and several letter of decline to go out.

Total subs from January to May was down a bit but have gone up since.

We have 2 more special issues to do: one international issue, and one co-edited by Leslie Shade and Becky Lentz. Manuscripts for both issues have all gone through review.

We have more international subscribers and authors/submissions. In the previous year we had only 1 , and year 5. This year we have more submissions from the United States, global south, Asia and Europe, and all want to dialogue with Canada

No changes to editorial board

Matt Soar has done great work and is a delight to work with.

On average, it takes 89 days for review, improvement from 95.

We always have some lags, but the authors have been incredibly diligent

2 articles in French

Marilyn is excellent and keeps us on track.

Anne has taken on a very active role in the journal.

Andrea continues to find interesting reviewers.

Andrea: Expansion in the search for reviewers into complimentary disciplines and the international community, and have had positive responses. Even when an individual is unavailable to do a review, have been told to ask again in the near future.

Kim has one more year as editor and the Board is preparing for this transition. Kim has a process in place for this transition, part of which includes a possible restructure for governance of the journal, such as sub-topic editors, which would allow for stability for future editors as the journal grows.

Susan O’Donnell: Question concerning the screening of the paper process – do we do internal screening? Recently was asked to review a paper that didn’t really have much to do with the Canadian context.

We always do a first round of screening, and part of this could be in relation to the special issues. Perhaps what we need to do is revise our call to reviewers and the specific context of the submission and as reviewers in specific instances to consider the relevance of the article to the field. At times we receive manuscripts that are of a particular specialization and we look to individuals with the expertise to judge the relevance. Again, this may be something that is included in the form letter to reviewers.

Gertrude Robinson: Question concerning gendered division of authors

Kim: Submissions are split across gender lines.

Leslie: Question concerning gendered division of reviewers.

Andrea: A conscious effort is made to address this when finding reviewers. This has lead to expanding the pool of researchers because when searching internally, certain research topics may be dominated.

Review Editor’s Report (Bradley 2010)

Kim delivers the report.

36 reviews submitted, 26 published, 3 rejected.

Publishers have us on their radar but the book editor must be diligent in reminding them because of the turn over rate of the job.

We are also on French publishers radar but it might be better to have a Francophone reviewer in the future. We need to revive the practice.

French guidelines have been written and a recommendation for French and English book reviewers was put forth from the board.

Dale extends his thanks us, particularly Marilyn for her assistance. Dale has had to resign due to becoming department chair.

David: Extends a thank you to Dale for excellent work and will extend gratitude with a gift.

Subscriptions (Carscallen 2010)

Total subscriptions were 411 with the first issue of this year.

Subscriptions are up in all categories: print, online, print/online, and institutional and individual.

The online portion has almost doubled since 2007.

Anne follows up with people that want to buy and persuades them to buy full subscriptions, and also follows up with specialized libraries, i.e. National Library, Library of Congress

Single issues have expanded to 56 from 12.

The Publication Assistance Program (PAP) has ended, marking an end to the mass mailing subsidy, which would normally cover 2/3 in our Canadian mailing costs, but we had to do a lot of work to use it, so while it mailing will cost a bit, we will save in terms of labour hours.

We have 23 new institutional subscriptions and 19 were international.

We have excellent readership with over 200 000 unique visitors to the site.

Elections – see BOD 2009

Executive: Richard Smith’s position as Secretary expires and is willing to stand for re-election but we can entertain nominations for position - - any??? None.

Richard maintains Secretariat.

Members at Large Bylaws say we can have up to seven but don’t have to have seven, we can have 6 for instance, Gordon Gow is willing to stay on.

Kim: Nominates Penelope Ironstone Catterall

Penelope: Accepts

Gordon is re-elected.

Numerous Board terms are ending next year but many of the current board, with the exception of one or two, are willing to stay on.

Other Business

The editor search is ongoing and we have circulated the call at large and also with cards during Congress.

The application date is at the end of September, and the add gives sense of what we’re looking for: senior scholar, institutional support at the respective institution. We’ve asked that a letter of vision accompany the application.

The buzz is out there.

David: thank you to everyone for the very fine work that we do and thank you Kim for your leadership

Kim has a detailed plan for the mentorship program

Adjournment

Motion to adjourn, Penelope seconds.

1:15 p.m.

file: http://arago.cprost.sfu.ca/smith/service/cjc/AGMMinutes2010/AGM 2010 CJC.doc