Most recent ITEC Journal

[Michael Bush]

so...

...Who are the "peers" that will "review" it...and what will they review...??

How much siyuntifik stuff can there be in a few pages of stuff written about tuba playing 'n' stuff?

In peer review, an article (usually with the identifying information about the author removed) is sent to other scholars with relevant expertise (usually two) who send back anonymous comments about whatever issues they see (usually about method or the quality of the argument). Sometimes that's the end of it, one way or the other. Often the editor asks for revisions that take the reviewers' comments into account.

As to your other questions, I don't know particularly what the research agendas of tuba and euphonium professors and graduate students might include, and I don't know historically how many such pieces the journal has published, or might publish in the future. I'm sure others know.

[PMeuph]

Would be nice to see a tuba reseacher gain some international notoriety (Nobel perhaps?) for a discovery that could help everyone.

Or an Ig Nobel ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig ... ze_winners

[Rick Denney]

I personally don't care about providing (by paying membership dues or subscription fees) a venue for people to receive tenure points, I just would like more credible info and less of the blatant plagiarism in the "journals" and "newsletters," electronic or otherwise, I take the time to read.

It isn't your job to care about the needs of other stakeholders, but if you reject them as stakeholders, you are committing the same error you accuse of them, when you suggest they are ignoring you.

If you want to serve all the stakeholders, you first can't define them out of the stakeholder pool. It is completely possible to provide for scholarly articles (as in, articles written by scholars and reviewed by scholars according to scholarly standards), without undermining the service to other stakeholders.

The point of recognizing the different ways different stakeholders will use the journal (and the way they will use the organization, for that matter) is in understanding and accommodating where they are different.

(Whether the scholarly section succeeds in supporting academic development depends on the review standards. It would probably be ideal to have these in a separate publication, perhaps with a separate--and larger--subscription fee. These can be subscribed to by college music libraries, who provide the place where scholarly articles should reside. But it could also be a pull-out or special section in a general-audience magazine, I would think.)

Rick "who wouldn't mind reading the occasional scholarly article" Denney

[Rick Denney]

so...

...Who are the "peers" that will "review" it...and what will they review...??

How much siyuntifik stuff can there be in a few pages of stuff written about tuba playing 'n' stuff?

That is also not your job to determine, if you are not part of that stakeholder group. Again, you are trying to impose a separate agenda by defining who is and is not a stakeholder. With a justification no less easy to defend, they might define you out of the stakeholder population, by declaring that ITEA is an academic organization only. (Nobody wants that, of course--I'm just trying to reinforce the point that some stakeholders don't understand or care about the needs of different stakeholders, and they should not have to. But that doesn't cause those other stakeholders or their needs to cease to exist.)

I have my own beef about peer-review processes, having published extensively in peer-reviewed journals, even as a non-academic. And I take the point that there just isn't that much to study--in all fields the same questions get addressed again and again. But it's mighty hard to articulate what process might be better.

Rick "completing a review of four scientific papers today--as a peer" Denney

[PMeuph]

(Whether the scholarly section succeeds in supporting academic development depends on the review standards. It would probably be ideal to have these in a separate publication, perhaps with a separate--and larger--subscription fee. These can be subscribed to by college music libraries, who provide the place where scholarly articles should reside. But it could also be a pull-out or special section in a general-audience magazine, I would think.)

Rick "who wouldn't mind reading the occasional scholarly article" Denney

Good point! I would see it as preferable to put the scholarly articles online and to put the "general articles" in print. This way everyone would have access to all the resources they need and there could be advertising with the the printed version. This would also entice people to subscribe to the printed version.

(If anyone is wondering, online periodicals are still considered as equal to printed versions if they are peer-reviewed. Also, the online format allows one to add sound clips, videos and more musical examples)

[PMeuph]

(Whether the scholarly section succeeds in supporting academic development depends on the review standards. It would probably be ideal to have these in a separate publication, perhaps with a separate--and larger--subscription fee. These can be subscribed to by college music libraries, who provide the place where scholarly articles should reside. But it could also be a pull-out or special section in a general-audience magazine, I would think.)

Rick "who wouldn't mind reading the occasional scholarly article" Denney

Good point! I would see it as preferable to put the scholarly articles online and to put the "general articles" in print. This way everyone would have access to all the resources they need and there could be advertising with the the printed version. This would also entice people to subscribe to the printed version.

(If anyone is wondering, online periodicals are still considered as equal to printed versions if they are peer-reviewed. Also, the online format allows one to add sound clips, videos and more musical examples)

Your quotes are incorrect, PMeuph. Just an FYI...

Oups, my bad. Fixed it now. So, ironically, you are now quoting my incorrect quote of your message.

[Mark]

An olive leaf has been thrust out by the new prez (see other thread). Why are we still posting here (as if behind her back)?

I'm sure she is aware of this thread. I don't think moving this discussion to her thread would accomplish anything.

[king2ba]

Do you guys understand that some people need there to be a scholarly element in the journal for their work?

I get it that you're probably also against tenure, but even if you eliminate tenure and go to a contract system in higher education (because something has to protect academic freedom) there is still going to be a requirement of peer reviewed publication in the evaluation process for renewal. Not everyone has this need. But a significant constituency does have it.

Given that in addition to serving your interests, the journal also has a constituency who need a peer review option, can you think of a better system than the current one where some articles are noted as peer reviewed? (I think it is safe to say that two different publications is not a viable financial option at the moment.)

This right here is the problem! There are TONS of educational journals that the college crowd could send articles to for publication. The problem is, the topics that they want to write about are things that most of us that play the instrument don't care about so why would a general education person? Write stuff that is interesting and people will publish it....write crap and ITEA will publish it!

[Rick Denney]

It's not for you to define what I should care about nor what my job is or isn't. As a non-member, you also have no stake.

You are missing my point. I'm not insulting you, but rather suggesting that each stakeholder comes in with their own needs and their own intended uses. Prioritizing the relevance of stakeholders should be done by the elected board of the organization--that's their job. When you argue against someone else's intended use, you are committing the same error as them arguing against your use. The point of consensus and inclusion is to accommodate all stakeholders intended uses. Stakeholders are not necessarily those who are currently paying dues, but those whom the board would like to attract as members.

Rick "whose experience facilitating stakeholder input is unrelated to his experience publishing and reviewing scholarly articles" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Here's an observation:

If....you used to be a member

If....you haven't been a member for 20 years

If....the organization is still in operation or even thriving

Chances are you haven't been missed by the organization.

Possibly. But past presidents have invited my membership personally, so I assume the membership of people like me is still desired. But there are lots of hobbyists besides me.

And I'm not talking behind anybody's back. This is a public forum, isn't it? Dennis AsKew responded early on and I therefore assume all the ITEA officers are aware of it.

Rick "who doesn't have time to read all thread these days" Denney

[cambrook]

I think that part of the issue here is that there are journals and journals. To me, the ITEA publication is better described as a magazine, as it falls far short of what a "journal" should mean in an academic environment.
A proper journal such as Nature or the New England Journal of Medicine is peer-reviewed etc as outlined in previous posts.

Call me cynical, but I suspect that it suits a few people to have a journal that doesn't meet these standards. If I wrote an article I might be able to get it published in this magazine, but it may not be accepted by a proper journal. Even better - if my employer isn't familiar with the "journal", they might give me kudos and recognition as if I had a paper accepted by a proper journal.

Having said that, I don't where else one might get an article about tuba playing published. I think a part of the problem is the requirement for people to be published to earn "brownie points". I'm glad I'm not in that situation....

Cheers

Cam

[mclaugh]

An olive leaf has been thrust out by the new prez (see other thread). Why are we still posting here (as if behind her back)?

Because they're small-minded people who would rather continue to bitch about the name change that happened 20 years ago than contribute positively to an organization that's presided over by a woman.

[Biggs]

I don't know why I'm compelled to re-state this; most likely the combination of a little spare time and overeducation.

Until the ITEA Journal fixes its copy-editing and layout issues, it will continue to be a professional embarrassment. These problems are going to continue to be rampant because the overwhelming majority of contributing authors are not professional writers and likely do not realize that their copy is riddled with errors that make up the bread and butter of elementary school teachers' red pens.

For this reason, the Journal needs a competent editor with the skill set needed to rectify this trend. Prof. Pierce is a stellar performer, teacher, and ambassador of all things tuba and euphonium, but I feel confident stating that he does not have the publication management and design skill set required to handle the preexisting problems with the Journal. Furthermore, I have no doubt that his schedule of performing, teaching, and representing all things tuba and euphonium is a demanding, more-than-full-time commitment, leaving precious little time for Journal upkeep or developing the requisite skills to improve our publication.

[Biggs]

Not having delved into Dr. Pierce's journalistic background, I still am left to wonder if Dr. Pierce accepted the job of editor because no one else did...

Biggs, you talk like you know of this copy-editing thing. Why not offer your services? I'll go out on a limb and guess Dr. Pierce would more than happily let you take over the job.

I do, I did, and my services were politely declined. For this reason, I am particularly wary of anyone wearing their ITEA hat (no matter how much I admire them in real life) making claims that new participants are welcome or that any of the business-as-usual by academic good ol' boys railed against in this thread has ended.

[Mark]

Because they're small-minded people who would rather continue to bitch about the name change that happened 20 years ago than contribute positively to an organization that's presided over by a woman.

For someone who only has a few dozen post on Tubenet, a surprisingly large percentage of them are aimed a insulting other members.