Abstract
Current Sociology was founded in 1952 and since then has developed into an internationalized and pluralistic journal while always pursuing its mission of sharing sociological works across the globe. Over the past 65 years, Current Sociology has played a major role in both discussions surrounding the field of production of sociological knowledge and debates on its limits and challenges. And at the same time, it has drawn up strategies to overcome these limits and challenges. Meeting these goals has been puzzling at times because within the global academic community, the very production of knowledge entails inequalities derived from a specific geopolitics inherent to the international division of academic work. This article analyses some of the main editorial policies developed over the past seven years in an attempt to face the challenges of inequality in academia and carve out spaces of intelligibility.
Since its founding in 1952, Current Sociology has developed into an internationalized and pluralistic journal while always pursuing its mission of sharing sociological works across the globe (McDaniel, 2012; Martín, 2011; Smith, 2012). Considering that academic journals should be collective constructions that promote dialogue and consolidate a field of knowledge, Current Sociology has played a major role in both discussions surrounding the field of production of sociological knowledge and debates on its limits and challenges. And in pursuit of this goal, through the diverse editorial policies put in place over the course of these six decades, it has drawn up strategies to overcome these limits and challenges.
Disseminating sociological knowledge throughout the world was one of the journal’s main interests at the beginning, along with the International Sociological Association’s mandate to represent ‘sociologists everywhere, regardless of their school of thought, scientific approaches or ideological opinion’. Meeting these goals has been challenging at times because of the dynamics of a global academic community, in which the very production of knowledge entails inequalities closely tied to specific geopolitics.
In response, Current Sociology has delved into the debate on the processes of producing knowledge and scientific publications, and on the disparities inherent to the international division of academic work. 1 Moreover, in keeping with the mandate of the ISA, Current Sociology editors have worked consistently to maintain the journal’s plurality and international representativeness. In this edition – which marks the journal’s 65th anniversary and my last as Current Sociology editor – I will analyse some of the main editorial policies developed over the past seven years in an attempt to face the challenges of inequality in academia by carving out spaces of intelligibility.
Much more than good will
By the time I took office, the ISA had already implemented policies to diversify authorship in its journals in response to a concern within the association regarding to high concentration of European and North American authors (Abreu, 2003; Albrow, 1991). While Current Sociology has always welcomed submissions in any of the official ISA languages, since 2008 scholars are free to send in manuscripts in any language, and funds are allocated for English language translations of the articles by scholars from underprivileged institutions.
As I have showed elsewhere (Martín, 2012), over the course of its history Current Sociology has published a greater diversity of authors than journals with a similar scope and prestige. However, this did little to change the prevalence of the authors published: when I took office in 2010, 75% of Current Sociology articles were still penned by scholars affiliated with European and North American institutions. There was a statistical limit to what could be achieved through ISA efforts and to what we as editors could do to alter the representativeness of the authors published in Current Sociology. In fact, the universe of North Atlantic scholars far exceeds the number of scholars from peripheral academia and this obviously results in a greater presence of the former in any international journal. Yet the main issue that I noticed during my first years as editor was the scarce number of submissions from these underrepresented regions: it was impossible to include African, Latin American, Middle Eastern and Asian scholars in the journal if none sent in articles.
During my first months as Current Sociology editor, in spite of broadly advertising that the journal would accept articles in any language and cover the costs of translating them into English if required, articles from the underrepresented academias simply didn’t arrive. And when they did, few met the minimal conditions for being sent to reviewers or were quickly rejected during peer evaluations because they were ‘too narrow’ or ‘not academic enough’ for an international journal. Apparently, then, the solution went beyond a simple call for all languages or a diversified pool of reviewers – though both of these policies have proved fundamental. Articles continued to arrive, mainly in English and from the core countries of academia, which made it difficult to modify the statistics on the authors we were publishing.
The problem was twofold. First, the style of communication – the idiosyncratic form of writing used by each national or linguistic educational community – represented a challenge for authors worldwide, but even more so for the peripheral, non-English speaking scholars. Then there were the deleterious effects of national academic cultures, which often oscillated between indifference to international publishing by local scholars and considering any publication in English (even in predatory journals) proof of a scholar’s internationalization.
Style of communication
The problem with style of communication is not limited to authors from non-English speaking countries: a good number of the articles submitted by European and North American authors addressed themes that were too local and conclusions that would not necessarily be of interest to readers of Current Sociology scattered across the planet. At times their writing style was exceedingly bureaucratic (following the IMRaD model, which has become increasingly common in North Atlantic academia), making them difficult to read or forfeiting rich data and potential theoretical debates by locking texts into a model that didn’t allow authors to develop the argumentative potential of their texts.
The same challenge associated with communication style is thus faced in both core and peripheral academia: to find a way to write articles that are both relevant and ‘readable’ for colleagues anywhere in the world. The demands of ensuring communicability – which is different from imposing a single writing model – represent an impasse for academic communities that value books, essays or more elaborate (or less straightforward) rhetoric, just as it does for those communities that have broadly adopted a short and structured article style in keeping with those popular in biomedical sciences. The preponderance of the IMRaD model in English language journals especially dissuades authors from non-English speaking communities, who do not feel comfortable with the writing style and are often unable to fit their ideas into such a structured mould.
During informal conversations, ‘meet the editor’ sessions at ISA events or academic writing workshops, the response of the researchers from underrepresented academias when I invited them to submit papers to Current Sociology ranged from fear to frustration. I heard stories – their own and, in some cases, stories about their colleagues – on trying to adapt to a writing or bibliographical standard that was not their own, about having to curtail their stream of thought. There were admissions of embarrassment regarding their own limitations when having to write in another language and even situations where their authority had been questioned in certain ‘mainstream’ debates because they had not mastered English or because they had included ‘peripheral’ authors in their bibliographies; not to mention the time and energy spent drafting a manuscript for an international journal – going against the demands of their institution and the work they needed to do to keep their fellowship or job – when their chances of being published were narrow. Such stories are common among scholars from Argentina, Nigeria, Switzerland, Lebanon and French speaking Canada. They feel that their work and their writing style are ill-suited to the formalities of presenting results according to the hegemonic models of English language journals.
The main obstacle for international publication in journals is how to communicate results and engage in theoretical debates when both the social realities and thinking and reading modes are, by definition, not universal. How can we convey local debates (especially those that have not been translated into English or, having been translated, are not considered ‘international’ references on a topic) and establish critical ties between these debates and mainstream bibliographies? 2 The problem thus is not limited to the periphery but is exacerbated here because the spaces viewed as ‘international’ often take on very specific features of the core national communities where they originated.
National academic cultures
There is some confusion between an ‘international’ journal and a journal ‘in English’. Previous research (Descarries, 2003; Gingras and Mosbah-Natanson, 2010) has shown that the predominance in English favours only the academic communities in the core countries and that a great number of journals in English – even those high in the rankings – are just national journals with numerous citations in the communities that are most important within the universe of the journals analysed. This isn’t a demerit, but it does become a problem when these journals or academic communities are viewed as parameters of internationalization. On the other hand, it should not be considered a special merit either, since journals from academic communities with a greater number of scholars will necessarily be more read and more frequently cited by its members, and this creates a disparity when it is the citation rankings that define what is considered relevant and where one should publish.
National academic cultures have represented a challenge as Current Sociology has worked to further diversify authorship. While on the one hand, it is always difficult to convince authors that an overtly local style can be an obstacle to getting an article published, 3 having to respond to the evaluation criteria of the academic community with which these researchers are affiliated is also a delicate issue. In this regard, where a scholar publishes matters in terms of what counts for their institutions, and not necessarily about the features of the journal itself.
Scholars from peripheral and semi-peripheral academic communities complain that they are expected to publish in top ranked journals, even when these journals are national, 4 and the writing style of these journals has little to do with the academic traditions of these scholars’ countries. 5 On the other hand, in some contexts, it doesn’t even matter where the article is going to be published, as long as the venue is loosely considered ‘international’. This is where predatory journals have an opportunity to exploit scholars, as shown by Ngobeni (2010) and Omobowale et al. (2014).
In addition, many authors from mainstream academic communities find it difficult to understand that ‘English’ is not synonymous with ‘international’ and that local debates – even those unfolding at prestigious core universities – cannot necessarily be universalized. And that, like their colleagues from peripheral or semi-peripheral institutions, they need to work and build a case so that their research results and analyses will be relevant for other readers across the globe.
Creating spaces of intelligibility
One of the advantages of being the editor of an ISA journal is the chance to imagine alternative solutions to put into practice the ISA mandates.
In an attempt to increase the number of submissions from underrepresented countries, in 2011 I began offering academic writing and international publication workshops. The aim of the workshops was to spread information on the process of article submission and peer review at an international journal, explaining the formalities and what to expect at each stage. Other topics emphasized included the basic features of journal publishing – the difference in size, style and content in comparison to other types of academic texts, but especially focusing on the particularities of writing for an international public without forgoing a local accent. 6 The workshops were held in different countries (from Mexico to South Korea, from Lebanon to Tanzania, from Italy to China, Norway, South Africa, Japan, Spain and a long list of others) and participants ranged from doctoral candidates to young researchers and renowned professors. Some were small, personalized workshops and others large gatherings of over 800 people.
The workshops had a highly positive impact on both the visibility of the journal and in the rise in submissions from the countries where the workshops were given. One frequent comment among participants – regardless of their experience or trajectory – was that the workshop had helped them ‘overcome the fear’ of sending in an article by elucidating the submission and peer review process, making it less esoteric and more practical. Moreover, in cases when an author from an underrepresented academic community finally got their article approved for publication, this often had a trigger effect in the region or country, leading to a wave of submissions, as close colleagues had been inspired by the author’s success. The sense of an open door, an editor who made herself available, and the real chance of being published gradually upped the number of submissions from these regions.
Additionally, during the workshops I interacted with scholars from other parts of the world, and the debates that began in the classrooms allowed us to discuss the epistemic importance and the real challenges of international publication. This had a fundamental impact on my task as an editor, allowing me to understand the particularities of each national academic community, the challenges of communicating scientific results, and the limits facing authors who, like myself, are not native English speakers and do not use English in their daily work environment.
Since its origin but particularly over the past seven years, Current Sociology’s goal has been to create spaces of intelligibility. These spaces are not defined by the mindless adoption of a single universal model – be it theoretical, methodological or stylistic – to outline local realities, or by the immediate and specular translation of singularized local features into universalized local features (in keeping with Laclau) in order to supposedly make them accessible to a universal community. In fact, getting lost in translation – that is, moments when the reader is free to make their own interpretation because the translation is incomplete – can be a valid heuristic exercise for producing knowledge. Undoubtedly, a journal is not (or should not be) merely a vehicle for spawning the texts a scholar needs to produce to keep their job: instead, they should be a space for debate, an arena where science – sociology, in this case – is updated, produced and redefined by each contribution.
These spaces of intelligibility that Current Sociology proposes put into practice the ISA mandate that rests on the three pillars that sustain academic publishing in journals: authors, peer reviewers and editors.
In terms of the authors, the greatest challenge for journals is to provide them with the support they require to produce a text that is understandable for the greatest number of readers possible, independently of their location or their professional trajectory. The academic writing workshops have served to promote this idea and help authors see how myriad research results can be approached in order to make them relevant for foreign readers.
With regard to the reviewers, as I have shown elsewhere (Martín, 2016), Current Sociology has developed a very specific editorial policy. If peer review is double blind, during my term as editor, I have had an eagle’s eye to the geopolitics of knowledge when choosing referees. Every article that comes to Current Sociology is reviewed by at last two specialists: a local one (from the same country or at least the same region analysed in the submission) and another professional somewhere else in the world. The aim is to guarantee that relevance is not necessarily built on ‘mainstream’ criteria, giving the author a chance to present local debates and to construct a heuristically productive argument for readers unfamiliar with the specific context or the sociological debates in the region in question.
Finally, through their day-to-day work and specific editorial policies, it is the editor who must guarantee these spaces of intelligibility. The editor serves as a bridge between referees and the author, but also as the central point where complementary interests converge. In the case of Current Sociology, these interests include the ISA mandate; the priorities of SAGE Publishing; the expectations of the academic field in terms of the reputation (symbolic or quantified by indexes) of the journal; and all the actual people – all scholars with multiple demands – who send in their articles or serve as peer reviewers for the journal.
Since its founding 65 years ago, Current Sociology has evolved into a journal that mediates dialogue, allowing exchanges that are sometimes not possible due to rifts within disciplines, geographical limits and different intellectual traditions among regions. And within these dialogues, we can find new heuristic tools to contemplate our local realities while considering sociology a necessarily global project.
After seven years
In the past seven years, the number of submissions to Current Sociology has grown by leaps and bounds. Its IF has risen; the number and diversity of referees has increased; and the time between submission and first decision has been significantly reduced. The professionalization of the editorial office could have led to more bureaucratic treatment for authors and referees in the pursuit of efficiency but instead, the journal consolidated a friendly profile. It is a publication that favours dialogue and exchange, one that understands the demands that we all currently face – authors, reviewers and editors alike.
Over the past seven years, the journal had expanded and grown stronger, and this is owed to a collective effort and to the commitment of many people, including the members of the publication committees, the two vice-presidents I worked with (Jennifer Platt and Vineeta Sinha) and the two ISA presidents (Michael Burawoy and Margaret Abraham). All understood the potential of ISA publications and supported numerous initiatives, especially the academic writing workshops, which were especially supported by the current vice-president of National Associations, Sari Hanafi.
A great number of the recent improvements to the journal are owed to the professionalism and expertise of Zarine Rocha, managing editor, and to Lola Bussutil’s work on social media. Administrative affairs would not run so smoothly without Izabela Barlinska. During my term, I also relied on the hard work of Sujata Patel, editor of the Monographs, and Bert Klandermans, co-editor of Current Sociology Review: their effort and commitment have undoubtedly had an extraordinarily positive impact on Current Sociology. Sage has been a fundamental pillar for the journal’s growth, creating a professional but also friendly work environment. Specifically, I would like to thank Robert Rojek, Naomi Blumson and Kate Leeming for their continual assistance. Indirectly, my colleagues’ support at the Department of Sociology at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro has also been indispensable. While on the one hand, the stiff university bureaucracy generally overlooks or minimizes the work of the editors of scientific journals, my colleagues have been highly understanding when I’ve been unable to take on more administrative tasks because of my duties to the journal.
Last but not least, I would like to thank everyone who contributed over these years to making the journal: authors, reviewers and the editorial board. The intelligence, generosity, kindness and sense of humour of these colleagues renewed my hope that even in dark times, it is possible to build collective spaces for mutual understanding.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.