[UPDATE] SPECIAL ISSUE: EVALUATION, PRIZES, AND PEER REVIEW
Call for Papers: Issue 2.1
NEW Deadline extension: 20 April 2012
Special Theme: Evaluation, Critique, Prizes, and Peer Review
What are the best and newest methods for creating, evaluating, and disseminating scholarly and creative work? This question motivates the next issue of NANO. As digital formats help to foster new ways to share and critique written and artistic work, as more people try to squeeze through the narrowing bottleneck of publishing, approval, and jobs, something has to give, or at least change.
Four guiding questions:
1. How have changes to the university, to scholarly publishing, and to digital publishing formats changed peer review? Will changes to peer review change the nature and methods of scholarship?
2. How have creative contests in the fields of poetry, short story, painting, sculpture, or design changed in terms of evaluation, prizes, and prestige?
3. What can the humanities learn from other disciplines in terms of evaluation and peer review?
4. How can we solve some of the current problems?
print/book/online culture, peer review, online peer review, poetry contests, short story contests, art and design contests, evaluation, judging, Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize, merit, approval, assessment, credit, collaboration and/or single author, contribution, attribution, plagiarism/remixing, authority/media bias, tenure and promotion, grading, popular culture evaluation, online discussion, digital/paper editing, marking up, peer-to-peer review, external linking, criticism, critique, crowd-sourcing, advice, monograph, scholarly electronic editions, Google, Google Scholar, e-books, e-journals, Wikipedia, Creative Commons, research tools, research blogs, editing tools, archiving, coding, open access
See Submission Guidelines at www.nanocrit.com