you could not have handled your task in a worse manner, even had you tried. not answering emails was bad enough, but then answering them by blaming the delay on your co-editor while she remains e-silent upped the unprofessional ante quite a bit. as did informing one submitter that he had made the short list and that he would hear back from you in a week, and then a month later responding to his follow-up query by informing him that he had not made the final cut AND the special issue has been scrapped altogether. come to think of it, that last bit really took the cake. oh, wait, but then you didn't tell all the other people who submitted that the issue had been cancelled, which meant they had to ask about it, and once again you blamed your colleague for not having told people, and said how disappointed you were with the submissions and that's why you're not doing it. adding insult to injury.
your special issue on "food politics," advertised on a national CFP listserv, turned out to be something of a disgrace. i hate you.
sincerely,
elizabeth
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
isn't there some bit about how they weren't happy with the submissions? THAT for me took the cake. Especially if they had a "short list," which implies that they in fact had TOO many contenders.
I still think the main editors simply ditched the issue editors, probably thanks to something other editor did. har.
Might I suggest -- in all seriousness -- a special issue devoted to the failure of journals? A special issue of blogs? Of journals themselves? Believe me, you'd have a lot of contributors.
All real joy is dark joy, and the joy people would get from seeing shoddy journal practices and foolish editors exposed would be very very very real indeed.
Why, yes, I DO have a story.
dhawhee: i'm sure you're right.
ms-cs: yes, yes, a thousand times yes. special issue of _cs_? after all, a field especially devoted to hand-wringing over it's own status.
Post a Comment