tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3571309.post113026098979339082..comments2023-10-31T07:32:11.739-04:00Comments on Wormtalk and Slugspeak: Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07566889846240013567noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3571309.post-1130285916581809712005-10-25T20:18:00.000-04:002005-10-25T20:18:00.000-04:00I got in the habit of adding this kind of thing to...I got in the habit of adding this kind of thing to my cv because peer reviewing for journals and presses is explicitly listed among "professional service" things that count a little bit for tenure and promotion at my school. I didn't bother to remove the info from the more public (i.e. outside my tenure file) version of my cv because I figured that the corner of our field that I inhabit is so tiny that the veil of anonymity is very, very thin anyway. My sense is that about ten of us just take turns reviewing each other's work. Very occasionally in a blind reviewing situation I get something where I can't immediately guess who the author is, but not very often, and I figure if I can guess who the author is they can probably guess who I am, and we were probably in a session together at the last Zoo. Also, I had a vague sense that since I do research in an area that's marginal for the traditional scope of the field in which I work and in which I have sought other jobs, showing on my cv that I review for mainstream, biggish-name journals in the field I want to (continue to) be employed in was a good thing for my credibility on the ol' job market.Tirunculahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788199657297216288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3571309.post-1130282777290991402005-10-25T19:26:00.000-04:002005-10-25T19:26:00.000-04:00Interesting. Yes, I do list reviewing activities. ...Interesting. Yes, I do list reviewing activities. I've never seen any problem with it, and in fact, I think the majority of c.v.s I've seen have included such activities. Personally, I don't think I review in specialized enough fields that people would be able to match up my reviews with their own work (also, I list the people I review for but not the topics - mostly b/c I figure people can figure out the topics for themselves given the rest of the info on the c.v.). Listing such stuff has always seemed pretty standard to me.<BR/><BR/>But then, I list the scholarly societies I belong to and have always seen that as standard on a c.v. as well. I wouldn't list a dozen societies, but I list four or five biggies. I think it does show involvement in the field - which you'd think could be taken for granted, but I have run into a surprising number of people who don't do things like join the AHA (or, more fitting, the Medieval Academy). Although this may have been more significant when I was a grad student/newly minted than now...<BR/><BR/>But then, I'm also of the tribe that lists articles under consideration as well as those accepted for (or appearing in) publication, which I think some people also find weird. So I may just be an inveterate padder. (It fits with my general wordiness.)New Kid on the Hallwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04982506415757771218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3571309.post-1130273421997229912005-10-25T16:50:00.000-04:002005-10-25T16:50:00.000-04:00Sir,I've been anonymously reviewing your blog for ...Sir,<BR/><BR/>I've been anonymously reviewing your blog for some time now and, while it has some strong points, I find that it has one major weakness: it does not link to Unlocked Wordhoard with enough frequency. <BR/><BR/>Granted, Wormtalk does link to the Wordhoard, but occasionally it has individual posts that do not link to the Wordhoard. This failure to properly contextualize your blog is unacceptable.<BR/><BR/>Even more shockingly, Wormtalk links to NONE of the academic publications -- past or forthcoming -- of that leading scholar in your field, Richard Scott Nokes. It goes without saying that the work of Dr. Nokes is so groundbreaking that medievalists who do not refer to him can hardly be called "scholars" at all. In fact, I would argue that no one in any field, be it literature, philosophy, or chemistry, should neglect alluding to the work of Dr. Nokes in (at minimum) two footnotes per publication.<BR/><BR/>I can only assume that you will either address these problems or resign in disgrace.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>AnonymousDr. Richard Scott Nokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.com