Here is the second proposal from Dariush. It would give the Editorial Board more involvement, and help make LPP more visible and accessible to more people. Gail and I are very enthusiastic about this idea and the proposal to recruit international LIS faculty as reviewers and authors.
We think that LPP should form a three layer editorial board. You and Gail form the highest level in editorial activities and rename yourself as "Chief Editors". The current "Editorial Board" should be renamed to "Editorial Advisory Board" in order to shape the second class of editors that advise chief editors both in accepting or rejecting received articles and offering new professionals for membership in editorial board. The third level that should be named "International Editorial Board" comprises of any volunteer reviewer that is interested in serving the journal freely. A volunteer can send his/her request regarding the membership + a copy of his/her resume to the chief editors and you will have the authority to accept or reject the application. Through adopting such a policy, the LPP will be more introduced and identified throughout the world, would attract more authors and reviewers to have scientific collaboration with the journal, will receive more qualitative submissions from students, practitioners, and tutors, and finally will play a more important role in scientific
development of the human. How do you see this proposal?
We would like to hear thoughts and ideas from Board members about this proposal.
posted by Mary Bolin @ 11:50 AM
5 Comments:
I certainly think that both proposals are good. However, I would suggest looking at the language being used to identify the two editorial groups. As it is, the International Editorial Board reads like an add-on -- which I know is not the intention.
Perhaps the editorial board itself is what needs shaking up, to make it more an International Editorial Board, and then a database of peer reviewers can be formed (similar in practice, I think, as The Library Quarterly does -- at least, it seems to be building a peer review database suggested by potential reviewers and potential authors alike).
This comment has been removed by the author.
It is very good to try to make LPP's editorial group stronger and more reliable. I find the idea of extending our board promising. On th other hand, we must pay attention to the existence of many levels of editing, since it might prove unwieldy. Perhaps you could evaluate the applications of prospective reviewers and include those that meet the desirable level of expertise.
I agree with johnd that the name "International Editorial Board" may be misleading. In order to get new ideas in, one possibility is to have two boards. The current board will still review manuscripts as now, but perhaps with a more concrete set of guidelines regarding length, scope, etc. We can at the same time encourage submissions of a shorter length, up to 2,500 words, on research in progress, commentaries on the profession, or something of that sort. These submissions can be reviewed by another board, but less critically. This would be where an LIS student or someone writing a first paper can try. This is also where an opinion piece can go.
I think this seems like a fine idea. Having a set of "managing editors", a "board of review" and then a set of reviewers -- which is essentially how I understand the proposal. I share some concern about using "international".
I'm perfectly willing, by the way, to review an article for the upcoming issue. Send it along.
Post a Comment
<< Home