成人VR视频

兼职编辑工作让我明白为什么许多学者被轻视

凯特·艾切霍恩(Kate Eichhorn)表示,许多学者表现出令人震惊的例外主义和优越感,但甚至连基本任务都无法完成

六月 24, 2021
Vintage newsroom with academic in the centre symbolising conflict between editors and academics
Source: Getty/iStock montage

点击阅读英文原文


在我职业生涯的大部分时间里,我都至少在从事一份兼职。最近,我一直在一家专门从事参考书出版的全球性出版公司担任开发编辑。

编辑从模糊集理论到多物种研究的数千个百科全书条目,使我成为了一个更全面的学者和一个更好的小知识竞赛选手。可以说,坐在桌子另一边也让我明白了为什么大多数人都鄙视学者。

我一直都很喜欢我的编辑工作。我也喜欢我的编辑同事们,他们都是聪敏、幽默、勤奋和体贴的人。不幸的是,我的工作对接的大多不是他们,而是那些撰文的学者们。他们只知道我是一个编辑,而且经常迫不及待地想让我明白,在他们眼中,我在食物链中的位置处于他们之下。

例如,我们会发生如下交谈。我把一篇文章交还给了一位着名的社会学家,请他把所有第一次出现的人名写全,而不是只写他们姓什么。他回复说:“你一定是一个十足的白痴!否则你会知道,没人在出版物里这么做过。”事实上,他在签订合同时就得到了一份投稿指南。

不愉快的遭遇并不只局限于资历较深的学者。多年来,我也曾与研究生和初级学者有过不愉快的交流;尽管这种情况下大多是因为他们的拖延和忽视,而不是彻头彻尾的傲慢。

在做编辑之前,我对于针对学者的一些刻板印象感到不满(如“那些不会教书的人”等)。现在我意识到,这些刻板印象大多都是基于事实的。许多学者确实表现出令人震惊的例外主义和优越感。他们还表现出惊人的无能,甚至连基本任务都无法完成。学者们通常要花几周甚至几个月的时间来回复简短的电子邮件询问(比如确认正确姓名拼写的请求)。当他们回复邮件时,他们的信息往往是出奇地不顾及他人的。

在许多情况下,学者们会认真地告诉我,他们在接下来的3个月里不能进行一些小小的编辑工作,因为他们目前要教2门课,或者对于研究生来说,要修2门课。我很想回信告诉他们,如果教2门课或者上2门课占用了他们所有的时间,他们可能需要一个新的职业!但是,我当然没这么回复他们。作为一名编辑,我没有立场向初级同事提供明智的建议。

最令人惊讶的是,学者们如此轻易地将这种不良行为施加到他们最依赖的专业人士身上。毕竟,编辑是学术生态系统的重要组成部分。这就是为什么编辑经常被邀请参加学术会议,分享对于如何出版的重要建议。

在我看来,问题在于,在编辑过程中行为不端的学者几乎不会因此得到惩罚。但这并不意味着我们不能选择改变。这是我对那些想要重新开始的不同学术领域内同行们的建议。

首先,假设编辑你作品的人和你一样聪明或比你更聪明。除了专业的出版之时,他们几乎都专精于某一领域,而且通常指少有一个研究生学位。更重要的是,平等地对待他们。记住,行动比语言更重要。

其次,要明白投稿指南并不是编辑们为了让你的生活痛苦而编写的随机规则列表。它们确保了一致性,并且是在与学科专家协商后制定的。因此,当你忽视投稿指南时,是在践踏专业编辑和自己同事的专业知识。

第叁,要意识到你的拖延和忽视会影响到别人。如果你不回复邮件,或迟几个月才提交材料或修改稿,就会产生连锁反应。你可能会导致一本期刊或合着书推迟出版,或是在出版商的季节性目录里制造一个空白。更糟糕的事,由于发展编辑和校对通常是由自由职业者完成的,他们只可能就已完成的工作开发票。你没有在编辑版本上签字可能会妨碍他们就已完成的工作拿到应得的报酬。

第四,开始为缓慢的的学术出版过程负责。你不用费力就能找到抱怨学术出版步伐缓慢的学者写的文章。作为一名编辑,我得出的结论是,学者们——包括作者和同行评审——在很大程度上要对此负责。

最后,也是最重要的一点,花点时间想想一个没有出版专业人士的世界。如果所有这些专业人士都罢工,谁来帮我们制造和传播我们的研究成果?这些研究成果通常对普通读者没什么吸引力,也没什么市场价值。

对出版专业人士态度恶劣的学者,有点像向父母抱怨免费食宿的青少年:不成熟,而且令人震惊地忘恩负义。你知道父母接下来会怎么说。

Kate Eichhorn is an associate professor and chair of culture and media studies at The New School in New York City.

凯特·艾切霍恩是纽约新学院(The New School)文化与媒体研究系副教授兼主任。

本文由陆子惠为泰晤士高等教育翻译。

后记

Print headline:?My side-gigging as an editor taught me why academics are despised

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (11)

Although I recognise the traits portrayed in some of my colleagues, I have to say that they are a minority in my (UK) experience. There are many of us who abide by the rules and deliver on time so this article does not help us at all. In my university, one can appear to "get away" with many things but they will rear their ugly heads in promotions. You may not get fired for everyday bad behaviour but you certainly will not progess.
There's no excuse for talking down to people in other trades. However, the audacity of complaining that academics aren't quick enough to respond to demands from profit-making publishers that they provide extra free labour. Especially, when that labour brings no benefits to the academics whatsoever! We work for free, you reap the benefits, don't expect us to prioritise this work at the expense of our students or research.
I would like to echo the comments of Steve C posted on June 24th - we do peer review for free, receive requests to turnaround revised manuscripts in a ridiculously short time span, and are inundated with requests for peer review. Our institutions do not recognise this activity towards progression and promotion - I do it because I feel it is my professional duty, and also because it forces me to stay up to date with the literature as I double check things. Finally, I will say that judging from some editor's comments, they don't always know the current state of the field or understand the research being presented - and can be quite rude. Are there prima donnas in the academic world? Of course there are, as there are in the editorial world. Let's save despising for truly despicable traits.
Just some of the reasons they are despised.
As an editor (unpaid) for several journals I have experienced the difficulties described by Kate Eichhorn, but actually very rarely. Of the difficulties, the most common is unpredictable delay. However it is useful to remember that there was a time BC (Before Computers) when routine departmental and institutional bureaucracy was dealt with speedily and effectively by departmental secretaries. The advent of desk top documenting 40 years ago meant that departmental secretaries were phased out as unnecessary expenditure and academics increasingly did their own administration associated with their research and teaching. My estimate is that this gradually increased their workload by, say, 15-25%. Curiously, over the years as the intra-departmental administrative assistance was reduced, the institutional administrative bureaucracy ballooned, and the tasks they created became more complex and more onerous. My guess is this, frog in the cauldron style, increased administrative demands on academics nby an additional 15-25%. So I have some sympathy for their delays in responses to my missives! But, concerning these problems raised by Kate Eichhorn, has anyone recently dealt with government offices? Or utility companies? Or tradespersons?
One thing that would help authors follow the style of a journal would be consistent author guides that are simple and easy to follow. Many guides are clearly made of copy-pasted patches that not always fit and are very cumbersome.
Some authors are annoyed by (usually very small) mistakes introduced by the editors during the publishing process. Such mistakes appear often, since we cannot expect editors to be experts in whatever special subfields that each author is working in. Of course there is no excuse for rude behaviour with editors (or anyone else really), and academics should behave like adults. However, I would like to point out that from the point of view of an academic, all the actual hard work is provided for free to the publishers. Peer review is voluntary, research is supported by government grants and universities, and so on. For an academic, publishers are just a printing press to get your work out there, to get a stamp of approval from a respected publication that you can then put on your CV. This is especially true in fields such as mathematics and physics, where people don't read journals for the latest work, they read arXiv. This is not to say that there is not a lot of hard work involved in publishing (there is), it is just a fact that most academics don't have any reason to care. "Finally, and most importantly, take a moment to imagine a world without publishing professionals. Who would help us produce and distribute our research – usually of no interest to a general readership and holding little market value – if all these professionals went on strike?" Probably by academics employed by universities, and there are some publications which work like this. Reminds me of that scene from the Simpsons, "Can you image a world without lawyers?". Also if you look at the insane amount of money that Elsevier, Springer, etc. are making from work that is provided to them for free, I think the "market value" is pretty high!
I'm going to echo many of the other comments on here... it's pretty rich to have someone working at a press complain that the unpaid intellectual laborers whose work sustains that business model are not sufficiently grateful or working fast enough. And 'despise'... such a word. There is a peculiar strain of academic self-hatred running through Western academia at this point, one which I struggle to understand. Does the author actually think that academics are generally despised - and if so, does this generate any self-reflection about membership in a profession so despicable?
Reference books and encyclopaedia entries? I would have thought most academics in the UK would, because of the REF, be being actively discouraged from contributing to such things.
"Many academics exhibit an appalling degree of exceptionalism and entitlement – and an inability to complete even basic tasks", says Kate Eichhorn. And the higher they climb the greasy pole the worse SOME get, but by no means all do, by far the worst habit is their propensity to talk down at lower/non-academics, especially on subjects not in their professional remit.
Click bait ("despise"!) from someone paid to deal with precisely the problems outlined, doubtless created by every type of author under the sun. Don't like creative and overworked people? Work somewhere else.