IC2011
Document Actions
Canadian Journal of Communication: English Language Review Editor’s Annual Report Vol. 35, Nos. 1-4, 2010. Penelope Ironstone, Wilfrid Laurier University, May , 2010.
Members of the board,
The last year has been an active one for book reviews, much as it has been for the Journal as a whole. Dale Bradley stepped down as Book Review Editor for the CJC owing to his increased administrative responsibilities at Brock. Following his recommendation, the position of Book Review Editor was separated into two positions to ensure adequate coverage of both English and French titles in the Journal. I stepped into the position of English Language Book Review Editor in the Fall of 2010. To facilitate the transition , Dale Bradley ensured that book reviews were lined up for the entirety of Volume 35. My report therefore reflects the data provided to me by Dale Bradley, but also contains a report on my own activities in the position since October, most notable of which has been learning, working with, and tweaking the new online management system for book reviews.
First Things First
I would like to thank Marilyn Bittman for showing me the ropes in the last many months. Her patience has been invaluable with my steep learning curve. I would also like to thank Michael Felczak for all of his help, not only with learning the new online management system, but also with sorting out the challenges and difficulties I or potential reviewers may be having with it. Usually, the problems are with the users, not with the system, so thanks for patience are also extended to him.
Stalking Publishers the CanCon? Way
I have had some good success introducing myself to publishers both online and at conferences and find that I am receiving a fairly steady stream of new books. I think this attests to what publishers have been telling me; the CJC is a “desired destination” for reviews. I intend to continue to capitalize on this (quite correct) perception. Of particular note has been the dramatic increase since the fall in Canadian books I have been receiving to send out for review (27 of 41 titles, or 66%). The bulk of these Canadian titles have been sent to me since October, which means that the bulk of reviews available for publication in volume 36 will be on Canadian books. While I also peruse for other titles that reflect the state of the Communication Studies and will be of interest to Journal readers, I am delighted that so many high quality books are coming to me through the Canadian pipeline.
One area that I would like to do this coming year is to tap into the Gertrude Robinson Book Award list of nominees in order to ensure that reviews of at least some of the titles appear soon after the awards are announced. Last year, there was a lag in securing reviews on these books, although two are currently queued for publication, including a review of the prize winner. This year, I am sitting on the jury and will have secured copies of all nominated books to post immediately following Congress. Hopefully, this will ensure a quicker turn-around time on the reviews.
Managing the Online Books for Review Management System: Digital Redundancy is My Friend
Perhaps the most significant change that has taken place for book reviews is the online management system. The system has streamlined book reviews considerably. The Books for Review page has meant that potential reviewers are able to see what books are available for review. Additional information, such the publisher’s blurb, has been included where possible in order to facilitate matching book with reviewer. Within only a few weeks of posting the first lot of books I received, the majority of these texts had been requested and placed with appropriate reviewers.
While we have been working primarily with the reviews assembled by Dale Bradley until recently, the stable of reviews accepted and awaiting publication has swelled in the past two months as assignments made in October and November have come due. The online system has facilitated the receipt of more reviews in a timely fashion, in large part because of the automated email reminders that are sent out just before the assigned deadline and after the deadline has passed. This is a boon, and means that there are a variety of high quality book reviews waiting for placement in upcoming issues. Like Dale, I would like to see book reviews lining up with themed issues, a difficult task without at least 6 months lead time for the review editors, and having these waiting reviews might be a valuable resource in this regard. However, it may also mean that a greater number of reviews will be waiting longer for publication. This might pose problems down the road. I will monitor the situation to ensure a balance is struck. However, I would like to suggest that, perhaps, reviews that have been in queue for an inordinate amount of time might be published in the online version of the Journal only in order to placate sometimes cranky because waiting authors. I will also continue to assess the flow of incoming and outgoing books to ensure these instances are rare.
The online system has also facilitated communication with reviewers. This has been especially beneficial with regard to working closely reviewers on requested/required revisions to their submissions. I have found this to be particularly useful in working with graduate students on the revision process. It also makes tracking submissions much easier. On the down side, it has also meant that there has been a spate of on-spec approaches that do not meet the requirements of the Journal.
The built-in redundancy has been wonderful. Record-keeping, communication, and tracking have all been made much easier. This was vital to me after a catastrophic computer crash and a continuation of Laurier’s legendary problems with its email server meant much data might have been irretrievably lost and important messages missed. I will continue to work with Michael Felczak to improve the system for those requesting books for review and for the editorial team.
I do wonder if it is necessary to include titles available for review in the print version of the Journal, if only because both titles had been requested from the website before we went to press. We might consider something that can be printed directing potential reviewers to the website. Alternately, I could hold off on posting the information on those books until after the issue is printed.
All in all, it has been wonderful getting to know the position and the game of review-editing. I know I have some fabulous reviews in the queue for upcoming volumes, and that I have many more metaphors left to mix.
Books Received: 41 Canadian Titles: 27 Books Sent Out: 35 Reviews Received: 25 Reviews Rejected: 2 Reviews Revise and Resubmit: 3 Review Essays: 0