I was only stating facts; it was not my intent to defend decisions of the
current SHA board. I didn't even say whether I thought it was a good or bad
thing. Nevertheless, I fail to see how getting the same material in a
different format is an erosion of member entitlements. The fact that
members are still getting a quarterly journal of a size consistent with
past volumes, but with the reviews published elsewhere, suggests to me that
we are now getting more content than before each quarter, not less. Is it
really going to be that difficult for you and others to go to the web site
and read the reviews or print them out if you care to do so? Maybe it will
be a hardship for some. I don't know. What I do know is that, if you are
indeed that displeased with this new policy, or with the way that SHA
manages its affairs, then you should contact those in the current SHA
leadership and tell them your opinion. It may feel good to complain on
HISTARCH, but it really doesn't do much good.
[log in to unmask]
V To: [log in to unmask]
Sent by: cc: (bcc: Vergil Noble/MWAC/NPS)
HISTORICAL Subject: Re: SHA Journal
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
12/19/2007 10:21
AM MST
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
I'm afraid I will have to disagree that this is new SHA book review policy
is supposed to be some good thing.
I have belonged to both the OAH and the AHA, as well as the SHA. Their
membership dues are comparable, and in one case actually lower, than the
SHAs.
They each put out a quarterly journal of some 300 + pages, including book
reviews that comprise some 40-50% of the page total. The book reviews are
usually out 12-18 months after publication, which is really good by most
peer-reviewed journal standards. SHA takes 3 years?
So -
How is that the SHA puts out a journal of only 100-20 pages, and can't make
ends meet w/o cutting journal content?
Carl Barna
"Vergil E. Noble"
<Vergil_Noble@NPS
.GOV> To
Sent by: [log in to unmask]
HISTORICAL cc
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask] Subject
> Re: SHA Journal
12/19/2007 09:53
AM
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
A decision was made some time ago to publish them as pdf files on the SHA's
website, which shouldn't be all that obscure if you're a member. They are
assigned to particular journal issues, and paginated as if pulled directly
out of the bound version. This saves a considerable amount on printing
costs (over 70 pages in the case of vol 41, no 2), as well as postage,
which was part of the rationale. As a former reviews editor for the
journal, I can also say that--largely because of space constraints--it was
not unusal for three years to pass after the publication date before a
review would appear in the journal. That sort of time lag diminishes the
relevance of any review to the journal readership, and this new policy
gives one hope that they will come out in a more timely fashion.
[log in to unmask]
V To: [log in to unmask]
Sent by: cc: (bcc: Vergil
Noble/MWAC/NPS)
HISTORICAL Subject: Re: SHA Journal
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
12/19/2007 09:17
AM MST
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
Mornin' -
Did I miss something?
Does the SHA journal no long include published book reviews?
Are they only available on some obscure WEB site?
Carl Barna
Lakewood, CO
|
