Home  ›  Article in a Peer-reviewed Journal That Is Relevant to Your Discipline

Article in a Peer-reviewed Journal That Is Relevant to Your Discipline

Written By Wednesday, April 20, 2022 Add Comment Edit
  • Published:

Disciplinary Fluidity: Bookish Journals, Book Reviewing, Information and Noesis Menstruation

Publishing Research Quarterly volume 37,pages 407–419 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Volume reviews are an indicator of information and noesis period. This written report explores and discusses the importance of disciplinary cultures among academic disciplines and disciplinary influence. Utilizing book reviews in disciplinary publications in history for the years 2016–2020, from two canonical history databases, a bibliometric view emerging of a selection of subjects reviewed in journals not associated with the disciplinary discipline of research. Examination of book reviews for the fluidity of knowledge in bookish disciplines provides evidence of information and noesis menstruum in publishing academic books. Data and discussion further frames and situates the growing hybridization of subjects of research and their disciplinary publishing. Book reviews, as a barometer and arroyo to examining this phenomenon, illustrates volume reviewing vis-à-vis academic disciplinary journals that are receptive to other disciplinary objects of research, not generally associated with that discipline. Equally scholarly inquiry continues to metamorphose, book reviewing assumes a receptive and broader intellectual and publishing environmental.

Access options

Purchase single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

34,95 €

Price includes VAT (Republic of indonesia)
Tax adding will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Sovietology is an illustrative example of a domain of noesis, which originated with the Cold War, just to get moribund and vanish from the academic sense once the Soviet Wedlock complanate.

  2. Some societal flagship journals place a concerted emphasis on book reviewing, eastward.one thousand. especially American Historical Review, too as Journal of American History.

  3. As digital humanities, geo-humanities, and GIS approaches flourish within the university, more than such cantankerous-disciplinary book reviewing will accept place.

  4. Per A.H.R. argument, expressing reviewing a wide range of scholarship: "Reviewing books and other historical material of professional interest—including films, public history sites and museums, collections of documents, websites, podcasts, and many genres of popular culture relevant to historians—is a primary responsibility of theAHR." https://academic.oup.com/ahr/pages/reviews_guide. Retrieved 5/v/21; Per JAH statement: "TheJournal of American History aims to be a journal of record that enables readers to proceed beside of what is produced in the field of American history. By making readers enlightened of new books and helping them identify and assess those useful to them, the editorial board and staff of theJAH hope to assure its role equally a periodical of record and to sustain historical scholarship. TheJournal does not accept unsolicited book reviews." https://jah.oah.org/submit/book-reviews/. Retrieved five/five/21.

References

  1. Abbott A. Anarchy of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar

  2. Becher T. Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Stud High Educ. 1981;6:109–22.

    Article  Google Scholar

  3. Brown R. Reasons for publishing scholarly book reviews from a journal editor's perspective. J Schol Publish. 2018;fifty(ane):21–5.

    Article  Google Scholar

  4. Buchanan AL, Hérubel JPVM. Interdisciplinarity: the instance of historical geography through commendation assay. Collect Build. 1994;14(1):15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar

  5. Campbell D. Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In: Sherif M, Sherif CW, editors. Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine; 1969. p. 328–48.

    Google Scholar

  6. Champion DJ, Morris MF. A content analysis of book reviews in the AJS, ASR, and Social Forces. The Am Sociolog Rev. 1973;78(five):1256–65.

    Article  Google Scholar

  7. Hérubel JPVM. Disciplinary permeability, academic specializations, and academy presses. Publish Res Quart. 2020;36(1):17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar

  8. Hartley J. Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2006;57(ix):1194–207.

    Article  Google Scholar

  9. Hérubel Jean-Pierre VM. Situating clio's influence in humanities and social science monographs: disciplinary affiliations and historical scholarship. J Sch Publ. 2009;41:56–66.

    Google Scholar

  10. Hérubel, Jean-Pierre V. Thou. "Interdisciplinary Characteristics of Historical Monographs and Intellectual Interactions at Work in Historical Scholarship: An Exploratory Discussion." In Estonian Research Council and COLLNET 9th International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics and 14th COLLNET Meeting Proceedings, Tartu, Republic of estonia (August 15–17, 2013): pp. 240–252.

  11. Hérubel JP, Goedeken EA. University presses and emerging disciplinary confgurations and orientations: an exploration and discussion. Publish Res Quart. 2019;35(1):39–51.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  12. Hérubel JP. The book review landscape in american history: specialization, segmentation, value, and history journals. Publish Res Quart. 2020;36(iii):350–64.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  13. Lamont One thousand. How professors call up: within the curious earth of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar

  14. Lindholm-Romantschuk Y. Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities: the catamenia of ideas within and amongst disciplines. Westport: Greenwood Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar

  15. Perry S. Who do you think you are? Reading, authorization, and book reviewing. J Sch Publ. 2018;50(1):12–5.

    Article  Google Scholar

  16. Shapin S. "Subject field and bounding: the history and sociology of science as seen through the externalism-internalism debate. Hist Sci. 1992;30:333–69.

    Article  Google Scholar

  17. Stahl Fifty. And so what if it'south not the New York times why one university press seeks book reviews in scholarly journals. J Schol Publish. 2018;50(ane):eight–11.

    Article  Google Scholar

  18. Stowe S. Thinking about reviews. J Am History. 1991;78(ii):591–5.

    Article  Google Scholar

  19. Zuccala A. Thed van Leeuwen, "Book reviews in humanities enquiry evaluations." J Am Soci Info Sci Tech. 2011;62:1979–91.

    Article  Google Scholar

Download references

Writer information

Affiliations

  1. Libraries and School of Information Studies, HSSE, Purdue University, 504 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2058, USA

    Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel

Respective writer

Correspondence to Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel.

Boosted information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this commodity

Hérubel, JP.V.Thousand. Disciplinary Fluidity: Bookish Journals, Volume Reviewing, Data and Cognition Flow. Pub Res Q 37, 407–419 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09824-7

Download commendation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Engagement:

  • DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09824-vii

Keywords

  • Volume reviews
  • Disciplines
  • Disciplinaries
  • Information and knowledge flow
  • Publishing research

medinawifee1989.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12109-021-09824-7?utm_source=xmol&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=meta&utm_campaign=DDCN_1_GL01_metadata

0 Response to "Article in a Peer-reviewed Journal That Is Relevant to Your Discipline"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel