I have heard from a friend that someone is circulating, in media to which I don't have access, the rumor that I publish - note the use of the present tense - in Chris Sciabarra's "Journal of Ayn Rand Studies." In reference to peer-reviewed media, "publish" would mean that I'm still submitting original articles for publication in JARS. (I understand, from comments, that some may be tempted to replace this meaning of "publish" by other meanings that this word has in other contexts; and then twist the result into a contradiction - and accuse me of dishonesty or incoherence, on the basis of equivocations thus manufactured. In this note, I am using "publish" in the one specific sense stated above, where "He publishes in Journal X" means "He submits his original articles for publication in Journal X.") I have not submitted an original article to JARS for years, and I have no intention of doing so, ever. The rumor is false.
In my early, pre-tenure years at my university, beginning in the 2000-2001 academic year, I did some research on the origin of the parallels between the schemata of knowledge representation in Ayn Rand's Objectivist epistemology and in object-oriented programming languages. JARS was a new journal that had just published its first volume, and its charter - to document Ayn Rand's influence on the history of ideas and culture - fit my research. I submitted my article on the origin of the parallels, and it was published. I noticed the poor quality of Sciabarra's editorial process, but I ascribed this to the "teething pains" of a new publication. I communicated my concerns about editorial laxness to Sciabarra, and I expected the quality of his editorial policy to improve.
Sciabarra's editorial policy did not improve. By 2006 he had published several articles of such low quality that they were clearly counterproductive to his stated goal, of getting Ayn Rand's intellectual and artistic influence to be taken seriously in academia. I communicated with Sciabarra at length, and I suggested changes that, had they been made, would have turned JARS into what, according to its published charter, it should have been. Sciabarra discussed the changes that I had suggested to him with his editorial board, but no changes were made. JARS continued to publish articles that were, in my judgment, unscholarly, intellectually disreputable rubbish. It was at that point that I decided never again to submit an original article for publication in JARS.
About a year later, JARS published a couple of articles on Objectivism and religion. My notes on those articles evolved into commentary that, in my judgment, needed to be aired. When I publish an article that may invite commentary, I expect that commentary to appear in the same journal, where I will see it and where I can reply. This is standard academic practice, with which I agree. While I would not submit an original article to JARS, it was and remains my judgment that my commentary was productive and useful. Therefore I followed normal practice, and sent my commentary to the journal that had published the articles that I was commenting on.
There was also an article that I submitted to JARS back in May 2005, and which was accepted for publication after being reviewed, by a peer reviewer whose work with me was unusually productive and well-informed (especially for JARS!) and continued well after the article was accepted. Peer review work is unpaid and anonymous; the reviewer's only payment is in the quality of work published in the journal to which the reviewer contributes her otherwise un-renumerated work. I participate in the peer-review process of a broad range of meetings, journals, and granting agencies. If a paper I had worked on were withdrawn after acceptance, for any reason short of its author repudiating the content, I would judge this as a breach of trust, the work I had worked having been wasted and unpaid-for. Therefore, I would not consider withdrawing an already accepted article, whose content I still stand by, as an ethically justifiable option. This last article was recently printed, bringing all association that I've ever had with JARS to a final close. (I have been told that the person who started the rumor - that I still submit articles to JARS - had prior access to the full text of the article, and should have read in the top footnote that it was submitted in May 2005, but only mentioned that the article was printed recently - not that it was originally submitted 5 years ago.)
I agree, after long scrutiny, with everything Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have written about the principle of moral sanction. I find nothing in this principle, or in Ayn Rand's own actions on this principle, that would mandate more than I have already decided and done. I have no proof that the failure to disclose the May 2005 submission date of the article, which I deduce is what started the rumor, was deliberate; and therefore I am not ready to judge its moral import.
The quality of JARS has continued to fall, so I'm not likely to find another of its articles worthy of comment in the future. I've let my subscription expire years ago (although, as is standard for refereed journals, I did receive an author's copy of the recent issue.) In the present, the rumor that I publish in JARS is false.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
The source of this rumor is that you or someone of your same name is listed as having an article in the latest edition of JARS.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog/archives/001590.html
Is there maybe more than one Adam Reed out there? Could this be an older article dredged up from the past?
Very mysterious!
Trey,
Please read the next-to-last paragraph above. Or maybe the article's first footnote, which clearly says, to anyone who can read, that the article was submitted in 2005. The rumor is either carelessness or spin.
I see that, but this does pretty clearly make the case that you are, in fact, publishing articles in JARS in the present.
You might wish to limit the use of the present tense for that term to the act of submitting articles, but no outside observer would take the same view.
I don't wish to get in the middle of whatever arguments or drama you have going on out there with others. You just seemed mystified as to the source of this "rumor" and there you have the facts supporting it.
Frankly, that you would imply that I'm illiterate for bringing this fact to your attention -- a fact I brought to your attention because I was granting you the benefit of the doubt -- wins you no further favor in my eyes.
Trey,
Where I work, to "publish in X" means "to submit papers for publication in X." And when the top footnote says "submitted in May 2005," to claim that I publish in X as of 2010 is clearly either carelessness or spin. I've been careless myself, many times, as every absent-minded professor has, and I would not find fault with someone else's occasional carelessness. And without access to what was posted, I'm entitled to hope that carelessness is all it was.
These knives look quite familiar.
I can't see the top footnote of said article and I doubt many people would split that hair there, either.
This is just my two cents and then I'm done with it.
If you had simply stated in your blog post, "An article of mine was published in the most recent issue of JARS. This was submitted in 2005 and since then I've broken ties with that publication. I did not withdraw the article because of XYZ," then your initial statement about the rumor of publishing articles in JARS being false would probably not look like such a lie and the subsequent discussion wouldn't appear to be obfuscation.
There are a great number of people who would not agree with your decision not to withdraw the article, but at least that would be the only point of contention here.
Trey,
"I can't see the top footnote" when the footnote is there in black and white for all to see, directly under the bold header "Notes" in the center of page 327, is plain denial of reality. "Your initial statement about the rumor of publishing articles in JARS being false would probably not look like such a lie" is exemplary post-modernism: when you don't like a fact, then "it probably looks like a lie," and so what does it matter that in fact it is true? You learned your post-modernism far too well. Whatever the nature of the original rumor may have been, what you are doing now is post-modernist spin. Are you thinking, perhaps, of lecturing at the Sorbonne?
I have to say, I'm not sure how a non-academic is supposed to know that "to publish" means something wholly different than in the larger society. Even if the article were submitted five years ago, how is the reader to know that in the interim you have resolved never again to submit to the journal? Or that academic culture frowns upon withdrawing the article? I would have thought that if the article had been submitted that long ago, the author and the publisher would have been spending that time negotiating about the contents. The assumption of rumor mongering is something I have yet to see evidence of.
Adam,
I can't see the footnote because I haven't a copy of JARS to consult. (Do you get copies for free because your article was published there?)
You're the one on a campaign to clear your name here against what you say is an unsubstantiated claim that you publish in JARS. I'm just telling you why people think that.
The primary fact fueling that claim is this article appeared in the most recent issue of JARS. That fact in itself is sufficient for someone to say that you do publish in JARS. The age of your article does little to persuade people against that claim.
Second, in your post you say that you may respond to criticisms of that article in the same publication. So, in spite of your claim that you do not intend to publish in that journal ever again, you reserve the right to do so on the grounds that this is common practice. Whatever your reasons, you have, you do, and you may again publish in JARS.
You seem to bristle at my saying your statement "looks like" a lie, but you're mistaking my giving you more benefit of the doubt that I now think you deserve for believing you've presented a clear argument against my understanding of these facts.
I would leave this alone, but at every turn you seem to be set on insulting me.
I approached your blog and commented here in good faith. I was genuinely convinced that "Adam Reed" is common enough a name that this might be some other or that a publication like JARS -- rife with "unscholarly, intellectually disreputable rubbish" -- may have dredged up an old article of yours without your knowledge.
But at this point, I've drawn my conclusions about your character. If it comforts you, my conclusions aren't based on the simple fact that you publish in JARS.
Trey:
The classical focus is, "what is true." The Kantian ("modern") focus is, "what do I think." The post-modern focus is, "what does the author of this text want the reader to believe." I simply identified the actual category of your sentence, "Your initial statement about the rumor of publishing articles in JARS being false would probably not look like such a lie." And I think that it is not intellectually responsible to assert that I publish in JARS, without your actually having looked at the allegedly recent publication. I had presumed that you posted after you looked. Finding out that you haven't is an unpleasant surprise.
Adam,
I worded that remark as I did because I was granting you the benefit of the doubt. I thought perhaps you weren't lying, but merely misunderstood. Perhaps you weren't aware of all the facts that made it legitimate -- an honest mistake -- to conclude that you were lying, so I thought you should know those facts. Perhaps you hadn't intended to obscure the facts to those who might come to you for your account of the situation, so I thought you might just be bad at defending yourself.
The publication isn't "allegedly" recent. It's less than a month old. People with subscriptions received their copies roughly a week ago.
You didn't "allegedly" have an article in that journal, you DID have an article published in the MOST recent issue journal.
You haven't broken ties completely with that publication, you maintain ties with that publication in the form of reserving not only the right but the expectation that you will respond to critiques of that article in that same publication. This amounts to a conditional intent to publish there again.
The person who wants to know if you publish articles with JARS need not actually read your article to see that you do publish there because they can see the table of contents with your name next to an article. They can also read this post when you say that you did and may publish there again.
You might wish refer to "publication" as being the time the article was submitted for publication, but that isn't what that word means and there's no way you can't know that. The age of your writing is not relevant to drawing that conclusion because it was published with your knowledge and consent -- your assertions to the contrary and about "intellectual responsibility" notwithstanding.
I see now from this exchange that you did intend to obscure the facts. You did intend to misrepresent the situation. There is simply no possible way you could have misunderstood how people drew the conclusions they do and you hoped that by layering on additional misdirection that they might be dissuaded from the facts of reality.
With so much of what you said having been shown to contradict reality, I even wonder if your statement about having let your subscription to JARS lapse is true because I now know that you have a copy of the most recent edition to which you keep referring.
I had hoped that I misunderstood something about you and this situation or perhaps I was missing some key facts, but you've provided all the additional information that I need.
Personally I think Chris Sciabarra is worth the entire staff of the Ayn Rand Institute plus most of the population of Orange County.
In Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery", the woman selected to be stoned to death disputes her election as victim on procedural grounds, but doesn't object to the senseless injustice of the stoning itself.
Chris Sciabarra would have shown the stature to defend you against this absurd witch-hunt, were he here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iwUZOnB9J4
Trey,
Authors are automatically sent copies of issues in which their articles appear, whether or not they subscribe - and I don't. This is just one of the many, many things about the academic publication process that you don't know, and that you have not tried to learn or to understand. You simply did not try to acquire a foundation, apart from arbitrary assumptions, mostly false, for your claims, much less consider filling the gaps in your knowledge before judgment. And I don't have the inclination to go through the ever-longer list of false assumptions in your comments. Think, or don't think, as you will.
Adam,
Again, you abuse language to distort reality to your own purposes.
I've given you the reasons why one would draw the conclusions I've drawn. You assert that they are false, but you contradict yourself right and left, which is why all of your claims are now suspect including those you say are common practice in academia.
You insult me only to distract others from your dishonesty. You are liar and a lout. You should be ashamed.
Alice,
I've had extended philosophical conversations with at least five people at ARI, and every one of them has a better grasp of systematic, technical and applied philosophy than CS has ever shown in my conversations with him. The bottom-feeder rubbish that CS sometimes prints in JARS is testimony to his incompetence in his chosen line of work. I don't know your criteria of worth, but they must be different from mine.
And there is no "witch-hunt." There is wide mix of people at ARI, as many that I don't approve of as don't approve of me. While I know of persons in the world who would be enthused to burn me at the stake, none of them are at ARI. Whatever your issues with ARI, I don't share them. And while I'm open to knowledge from anyone, I have no use at all for arbitrary opinions. Please keep this in mind when commenting on my blog.
Adam-
I believe that severs my last emotional tie to Objectivism.
You will not hear from me again.
Alice.
I had a different, equally disturbing experience working with JARS, and like you will not be dealing with them again: http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2008/09/my-review-of-holzers-book-on-clarence-thomas.html
Post a Comment