New/Recent Publications

 

Reconstruction: Studies in Contemporary Culture: Archives on Fire: Artifacts & Works, Communities & Fields

Archives and Creation: New Perspectives on Archives. This workbook reports on the work carried out during the third stage (2015-2016) of the project “Archives and creation: new perspectives on archival science.”

Teaching and Learning in Virtual Environments: Archives, Museums, and Libraries, by Patricia C. Franks, Lori A. Bell, and Rhonda B. Trueman.

A Matter of Life and Death: A Critical Examination of the Role of Official Records and Archives in Supporting the Agency of the Forcibly Displaced, by Anne J. Gilliland.

Framing Collaboration: Archives, IRs, and General Collections, by Amy Cooper Cary, Michelle Sweetser, Scott Mandernack, and Tara Baillargeon.

https://mla.hcommons.org/deposits/item/mla:1023/

Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection, 6th International Conference, EuroMed 2016, Nicosia, Cyprus, October 31 – November 5, 2016, Proceedings, Part II, Editors: Ioannides, M., Fink, E., Moropoulou, A., Hagedorn-Saupe, M., Fresa, A., Liestøl, G., Rajcic, V., Grussenmeyer, P.

Developing a Primary Source Lab Series: A Collaboration Between Special Collections and Subject Collections Librarians, Adam Rosenkranz, Gale Burrow, and Lisa L. Crane.

A Modern Look At The Banco De’ Medici: Governance And Accountability Systems In Europe’s First Bank Group, by Marco Fazzini, Luigi Fici, Alessandro Montrone, and Simone Terzani.

Archives, memory and colonial resistance in the work of the Portuguese filmmakers Margarida Cardoso and Filipa César, by Antonio Marcio Da Silva.

Sailing into Metrics: Rethinking and Implementing Metrics and Assessment in Archives, by Amy C. Schindler.

Practical Digital Curation Skills for Archivists in the 21st Century, presentation by Myeong Lee, Mary Kendig, Richard Marciano, and Greg Jansen.

Memory hole or right to delist? Implications of the right to be forgotten on web archiving, by Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Andrés Guadamuz.

What are we talking about when we talk about sustainability of digital archives, repositories and libraries? by Kristin R. Eschenfelder, Kalpana Shankar, Rachel Williams, Allison Lanham, Dorothea Salo, and Mei Zhang.

Mapping the UK information workforce in the library, archives, records, information management, knowledge management and related professions, by Hazel Hall and Robert Raeside.

The retrieval of moving images at spanish film archives: the oversight of content analysis, by Rubén Domínguez-Delgado and María-Ángeles López Hernández.

The Case of the Awgwan: Considering Ethics of Digitization and Access for Archives,
Peterson Brink, Mary Ellen Ducey, and Elizabeth Lorang

Advertisements

How to Choose a Journal

As I talk to people about publishing, one of the questions I hear the most is “How do I know what journal to publish in?” It’s a great question, and it doesn’t have an easy answer. When I was editor of Provenance, I of course wanted the submissions but it was more important to focus instead on what is best for the author. Many times I suggested other journals if I thought they were more appropriate.

We all strive (dream?) to have an article accepted for American Archivist. They receive a lot of submissions, and it can be tougher. If you’re interested in acceptance rates, you can read the reports online including from the May Council meeting. While I can’t speak for all the archives journals, I seldom received more than 10, and usually less, in any given year for Provenance. Fewer submissions does not mean automatic acceptance, as all go through the peer-review process and not all are accepted for publication. Journal of Archival Organization is quarterly, and more issues may (theoretically) increase the chance of acceptance. Archival Practice has a rolling deadline, meaning that as articles are accepted they are published (after revisions, of course).

And what about non-archives journals? I have no idea about acceptance rates for other disciplines, but don’t limit yourself. The more we publish about what we do and how we do it to non-archivists, the more others will understand our role in documenting society.

Then there’s the chicken-egg dilemma: do you pick a journal and then write, or write and then find a journal? I have no good answer for this either. It really depends on your topic and type of article you’re writing. American Archivist has great guidelines on different types of submissions. But if you follow those, that doesn’t necessarily limit you to that journal. I suggest reading the scope and submission guidelines of several journals to be familiar with what’s out there. Review my list of journals and see what might work for you.

So how to decide? Here is a list of considerations to get you started:

  • Who is your audience? Is it archivists or possibly historians, environmentalists, genealogists, political scientists, journalists, academic faculty, or others?
  • What is your timeframe? Are you publishing for tenure or for fun?
    • If for tenure, is there a requirement to publish in top-tier journals? A number of articles?
    • Does the publication’s CFP/issue release work with your timeline? It can take a year or longer to get published, though some journals may have quicker turnaround times.
  • What is your topic? Is it general in nature? Or does it have a focus such as technology, audiovisual, manuscripts, records management, conservation, or other? Is there a subject-oriented journal that would be most appropriate?
  • Is there a journal that you read and really like the content?
  • Does your article meet the journal’s scope and guidelines?
    • Don’t send it to more than one journal at a time; this is often stipulated in submission guidelines.
  • If declined at one journal, go ahead and send it to another. Different review boards have different ideas of what fits their journal.
    • I’ve said this before but is always a good reminder: don’t take rejection personally. Use the feedback to make your article better and keep going.
  • If you’re not sure, email the editor. Don’t be shy, they want to hear from you! (And trust me, they want submissions).
  • Talk to your peers. Find out what journals they read regularly.
  • Do you have a strong opinion about open-access vs. subscription?

New Issue: Archivaria

reposted from A&A listserv:

I’m very pleased to announce that Archivaria 81 (Spring 2016) is now available online to ACA members and subscribers. The print issue is in production and will be mailed shortly. In accordance with our rolling access window, Archivaria 73 (Spring 2012) is now available to all readers in the Main Collection.

Thank you to the Archivaria Editorial Team and the ACA Office for all their hard work on this issue.

Kind regards,
Jennifer Douglas, General Editor, Archivaria

Archivaria 81 (Spring 2016)
Articles
An Accidental Archive of the Old Durham Road: Reclaiming a Black Pioneer Settlement
Naomi Norquay
From Human Rights to Feminist Ethics: Radical Empathy in the Archives
Michelle Caswell and Marika Cifor
Romance Writers’ Use of Archives
Caryn Radick
Digitizing Archival Records: Benefits and Challenges for a Large Professional Accounting Association
Monica Kenely, Brad Potter, Brian West, Phillip Cobbin
and Steven Chang
Archiving Paul: Manuscripts, Religion, and the Editorial Shaping of Ancient Letter Collections
Gregory Fewster

Gordon Dodds Prize
Community Archives, Community Clouds: Enabling Digital Preservation for Small Archives
Grant Hurley

Book Reviews
TIM DEAN, STEVEN RUSZCZYCKY, and DAVID SQUIRES, eds., Porn Archives
Marcel Barriault
RICHARD RINEHART and JON IPPOLITO, Re-Collection: Art, New Media, and Social Memory
Amy Marshall Furness
CHERYL BEREDO, Import of the Archive: U.S. Colonial Rule of the Philippines and the Making of American Archival History
Aaron Gordon
JEAN DRYDEN, Demystifying Copyright: A Researcher’s Guide to Copyright in Canadian Libraries and Archives, 2nd ed.
Heather Martin
ALANA KUMBIER, Ephemeral Material: Queering the Archives
Rebecka Sheffield

Exhibition Review
No Little Plans: Alternative Building and Transportation Visions for Toronto. CITY OF TORONTO ARCHIVES
Simon Patrick Rogers

Learn Everything Pt. 2: Review a Journal or Article!

I’ve been thinking more about the challenges we all face in keeping up with scholarly literature. This came up on the SNAP Twitter chat and I wrote more about it a couple weeks ago. Eira Tansey has a great calendar she uses (which she graciously allowed me to add here).

We all know it’s overwhelming to know where to start. Do you start with the latest issue of American Archivist? Read that Archival Issues that’s been sitting on your desk for four years? Look at the plethora of online journals? Or find articles about a certain topic of interest?

As I thought about this, it emphasized a gap: there are few reviews of journals or articles, the focus is more on books, exhibits, software, or other tools. The American Archivist reviews portal has a review of the Provenance Advocacy issue, and I did a profile of VIEW. After I wrote that post, I intended to continue to feature journals (besides CFP or new issues/articles). But it’s a lot for one person to do.

So here’s my proposal: I’d like anyone interested to contribute to this blog by reviewing articles and/or journals. You can write as many as you want, as often as you want. You choose what you want to write about and I’ll post it. All along, I’ve wanted this blog to have multiple contributors and I’ve had a few guest posts (for which I’m grateful for). Think about it: it encourages you to read the literature AND gives you an opportunity to write!

I created a sign-up sheet to avoid overlap. Feel free to add anything. Know that it won’t be my intention to moderate what you write (though I’ll gladly offer feedback if you want it). For all the guest posts so far, I haven’t changed a word. I believe it’s important to have multiple voices and perspectives, so I see my role as only posting what you write.

I hope you like this idea and I especially hope to hear from you!

The Importance of Submission Guidelines

I received a suggestion to discuss following submission guidelines for journals. While it seems simple enough, I (as have other editors) have received submissions where it’s apparent guidelines were not thoroughly read. There are some flexibility and at times there are minor issues if not followed accurately, but it’s very helpful for editors when submissions adhere to the guidelines.

One of the most obvious, and the most challenging for both author and editor, is citations. Most journals use Chicago style, but library or other programs may use APA or MLA. The percentage of submissions I’ve received formatted in other than Chicago is small, luckily, but I have asked authors to redo citations. It is a tedious process to redo, and I’m sure not enjoyed by author nor editor. I’m most comfortable with Chicago style, as that’s what is used for Provenance, and what I used in my history PhD program. Even though I’ve been using it for years, I regularly use the quick guide to make sure formatting is correct. I know that authors will make errors and that’s okay, as long as overall it follows the appropriate style. Library or other programs may not use Chicago, so if an author is submitting a paper written for a class that creates extra work. It’s well worth investing the time. More about citations in a future post.

Because scholarly journals are peer-reviewed, it’s important that authors not include their name on the submission. This is something fairly easy for an editor to fix, but it is an extra step that can easily be alleviated. Margins, page numbering, type of document (such as Word), how to include illustrations, and length are all easy requirements to adhere to.

Authors have a responsibility to read the guidelines. To my knowledge, no article will be denied if it doesn’t adhere to guidelines, at least for Provenance. However, editors greatly appreciate it when authors follow instructions. My advice is for authors to read the guidelines multiple times as they work on submissions.

In return, journals have a responsibility to authors to provide clear guidelines. Provenance‘s guidelines are few and straightforward. American Archivist not only provides guidelines, but many tips on writing different types of submissions. I frequently refer authors to this site as I find it very helpful. Archival Issues has an extensive style guideJournal of Archival OrganizationArchivariaJournal of Western Archives, and other journals provide detailed guidelines.

A challenge for authors is that all journals have different requirements. In a quick review of the ones mentioned, all are very different. Provenance has few requirements, while Archival Issues has an extensive style guide. When in doubt, email the editor. I regularly answer questions prior to receiving a submission and I appreciate when authors take initiative to ensure it meets the requirements. These questions also help an editor clarify guidelines; if one person has a question, others probably do too. Previous Provenance guidelines mentioned “embedding” footnotes and I received numerous questions about this. It referenced formatting used long ago, and because of the questions I removed that stipulation. I want the guidelines to be helpful so questions and feedback will help strengthen them for future authors.

Guidelines exist to help both the author and editor. For the author, the help create a solid submission. For the editor, they help with putting the journal together. Authors that closely pay attention to the guidelines make editors happy. In my experience, most submissions have done well but I’ve heard from other editors who have had more challenges. It only takes a few minutes to read through them, especially if over time you submit to multiple journals. The editors will appreciate your efforts.