Month: July 2016

Dikeç, Mustafa 2015 Space, Politics and Aesthetics – A Review Forum | Society and space

A forum on Mustafa Dikeç’s Space, Politics and Aesthetics (Edinburgh University Press, 2015), with contributions by David Featherstone, Gillian Rose, Japhy Wilson, Mark Jackson, Nigel Clark, …

Source: Dikeç, Mustafa 2015 Space, Politics and Aesthetics – A Review Forum | Society and space

Most Cited Philosophers (and others)

Looking to justify something I’m writing on Foucault, namely that he remains one of the most cited philosophers thirty years after his death, led me down the rabbit hole of looking at three different sources: (1) The most cited philosophers in the social sciences in 2014 here. Foucault’s Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality volumes comes in second and third among philosophers with Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions (no surprise) on top; (2) there is this Thomas Reuters’ study from 2007 (Foucault up top, followed by Bourdieu and Derrida) ; (3) and most interestingly to me this Arts and Humanities Citation Index listing of the 250 most cited authors in 1986. For the record, again Foucault does well among philosophers (don’t write me about the label–it’s just the one put on him continually, and there is that late comment in a lecture course where he says as a philosopher, he was obligated at least once to lecture fully on Socrates), though Lenin and Marx are just killing the Bible, just to rankle the Reaganites of that era.

CHE Article on Journal Editors and Their Work

Most of this offers good advice (h/t Christina Daigle on FB): don’t have titles that are too punny or silly, really pay attention to your abstract and first couple of pages, realize if you cite someone and we editors need ideas for reviewers, they might be used first, etc. But I would say the first rule is to read the darn journal before submitting–it’s amazing how many desk rejects are just simply because it’s not a fit for what the journal publishes. This below is a bit strong:

Do not — repeat, do not — complain to the editor about the reader reports you receive. (Find a friend, a mentor, or a therapist for that.)

Don’t complain, but you can defend your work without being defensive: give an argument (we try, but don’t always screen well bad reports), but don’t pretend editors won’t roll their eyes when you suggest your work is simply being oppressed by mean referees.

Source: How Your Journal Editor Works – The Chronicle of Higher Education