Read on Twitter
Thread: So, the thing that strikes me here is actually about larger issues in relation to CRT & journals. This is on my mind b/c I am on a panel organized by @janineutell for the @celj_editors about editing and race at #MLA2021 in Jan. 1/ https://twitter.com/JonathanHsy/status/1341008738564657160
How exactly does a journal think that green lighting a 46 pg. "review essay" (so not peer reviewed, but a review, but just that much space, on 1 book chapter) somehow is a normal editorial practice. I would discourage junior scholar to send critical race work to this journal 2/
b/c the approval of this review, in its total outsized 46-pg. publication from someone who has never published on CRT, tells you everything about what they will do with actual premodern CRT work. The fact that the effect of this review publication was jr. scholars being told 3/
to expunge the term "race" from their work (book or article) or told they cannot publish b/c "race" is not something that is happening in the premodern past. Of course, I see all the CRT work in Classics so, apparently "race" is something we skipped in Medieval b/c 4/
But on top of that, even the most conservative medieval studies journal has the editorial courtesy of offering a response to the person who has been reviewed deleteriously. But apparently, these basics of academic scholarly courtesy cannot be given to a senior WOC scholar. 5/
If they can't do that, what do you imagine they will do to junior scholars work who are BIPOC and working on CRT? This is a journal I would say, "stay away," b/c they will just waste your time, reject your work b/c you do CRT. The time wasting is particularly terrible 6/
for jr. folks b/c they are on a timeline for publication and this is going to make them waste time. We really need to start writing some sort of wiki/guide something something that tells people, don't send stuff to x and y journal b/c against CRT work. End.
