On February 10 we cross-posted an announcement from H-SAE (the
list in H-Net of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe)
concerning the decision of Cambridge University Press not to
publish a controversial book on Macedonia, along with a statement
that Charles Ingrao obtained from Richard Fisher of C.U.P. The
following new statement, from the two C.U.P. series editors who
resigned in response to that decision, is more encouraging for
those working in politically sensitive fields.---Editor
-----------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:52:23 -0500
From: TONY GALT <galta@GBMS01.UWGB.EDU>
Subject: FYI: A happier future for scholarly publishing
A HAPPIER FUTURE FOR SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING
Following recent consultations between the Syndics of Cambridge
University Press and members of the Faculties of Archaeology and
Anthropology of the University of Cambridge, the Press has moved
decisively to regain the initiative and prestige that were
threatened by its recent rejection of Anastasia Karakasidou's
book manuscript and by the events that followed. On 21 March, the
Press stated that the decision raised "important" issues; that it
wished to learn from the experience; and that it was taking
seriously, and will respond to, the views expressed by many in
the academic world. Specifically, it has instituted, as we
suggested, a wide-ranging review of its procedures whereby
manuscripts are reviewed for publication. This review is to
possess the transparency that it requires, and should benefit
academic publishing far beyond the confines of one particular
press; indeed, the commitment to consult members of other
publishing and academic bodies is, we suggest, the clearest
possible indication of the Press's seriousness of intent.
We wish to signal our immense satisfaction and pleasure at this
positive development. Since, moreover, it clearly recognizes the
sources of dismay over the Karakasidou decision among the
international academic community, we recommend ending the
moratorium on manuscript refereeing and submission for which we
had called a few weeks ago.
The Association of Social Anthropologists of the British
Commonwealth has moved to criticize CUP's earlier action, and
will revisit the issue at next year's business meeting. We
believe that this was one of a number of events that helped to
persuade the Press of the very widespread unhappiness that the
academic community felt over the original decision, and we view
its new determination to implement a thorough review of
procedures as presaging an important contribution to the
protection of scholarly activity.
In addition to those who negotiated with the Press in Cambridge
and initiated the ASA action, many others deserve the gratitude
of the academic community as a whole. We prefer to name
institutions and groups rather than individuals, but those who
have been personally involved will have the satisfaction of
seeing their efforts swiftly rewarded. We wish to mention: the
Society for the Anthropology of Europe and its e-mail network
(H-SAE); the ASA and other interested academic bodies in the U.K.
and U.S.; the news media in several countries; and, last but
perhaps most important, the many scholars -- including students
-- who, sometimes at great personal cost, wrote in protest,
withdrew their manuscripts, or refused to referee new
manuscripts, and so ensured that the message was heard with
ringing clarity. We would be remiss if we failed to acknowledge
also the officers of Cambridge University Press who joined in the
discussion and so helped to propel the process in a forward
direction. We have all learned a great deal from this experience,
which has ramifications far beyond the particular case that
triggered it. A serious commitment has been made by CUP to
thinking through the role of academic presses in preserving and
protecting freedom of scholarly expression and dissemination, and
we believe that this will be a true compensation for all those
who have suffered the effects of an impassioned and sometimes
wrenching debate. It is time to move on; we are glad to be able
to to so and we are deeply grateful to those who have helped to
make it possible.
Stephen Gudeman and Michael Herzfeld
2 April, 1996