Headlines on the BBC website are littered with annoying and often unnecessary quotation marks. They are used inconsistently and sometimes misleadingly.
Here are some of the funniest examples:
Here are six different ways in which the BBC website misuses quotation marks. (more…)
Posted by Adrian Blau on March 24, 2014
https://adrianblau.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/the-curse-of-quotation-marks-on-the-bbc-website/
This morning I got an email from someone at David Publishing who wrote:
We have learnt your paper “Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Quentin Skinner’s Real Method“ in the Association for Political Theory 11th Annual Conference.
I’m glad they “learnt” my paper, not least because I never gave it – the paper was too tricky and I gave a different one instead.
But what raised my eyebrows was this:
If the paper is accepted by our journal,you need to pay some fees for publishing. $50/page and if the paper is over 15 page or with high quality we will give you a discount about 30%-50%.
This journal, History Research, published 36 articles last year. If we assume 10 pages an article at the quoted figure of $50 a page, that’s an income of $18,000 for this one journal alone. Given the poor quality of English in the email they sent me, I’m guessing they don’t spend much money on proofing.
A quick Google search reveals lots of academics worrying about this publisher: see here (Scholarly Open Access’s watch list) and here (Brian Leiter’s philosophy blog).
One of these worries – that it’s all a scam – is clearly outdated: David Publishing are now explicit, up-front, that authors must pay to publish. So, this isn’t a scam. Indeed, a quick Google search shows that most of the people publishing in recent issues of this particular journal have posts in established academic institutions.
My worry is that many academics, especially young ones, are easily enticed by such emails from publishers; see here for several academics who took David Publishing’s emails seriously. And I remember being very flattered when I was told that my first ever conference paper had been accepted for the conference proceedings. The conference proceedings were fairly prestigious in the sub-field, but in retrospect I should have thought seriously about declining, and submitting the paper elsewhere. I certainly doubt that History Research would carry any serious weight at any serious academic institution. Indeed, having such a journal on your CV could count against you, not in your favour.
So, my very obvious advice to readers of this blog – especially MA and PhD students, and early career researchers – is to be very careful about such emails, and to chat with more senior colleagues about where to publish your work.
Posted by Adrian Blau on March 21, 2014
https://adrianblau.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/history-research-scamvanity-publishing/
A chair tip
1. Don’t read out the speaker’s past history from a printout of their webpage: look as if you know something about them. And for multi-paper panels, all you may need is ‘next up is Jo Public from Edinburgh’.
2. Don’t read out the speaker’s original title, which may have changed since submission. Check the title in advance, or just introduce the speaker not the title. You may also want to check how to pronounce the speaker’s name/university.
3. If possible, tell speakers well in advance how long they have. The organiser may already have done this, of course.
4. If possible, warn speakers well in advance that you will be controlling time carefully. Graduate students and junior faculty may worry about saying this to senior faculty; but if a speaker overruns in a multi-paper panel, it’s discourteous and unfair to other speakers, and if a speaker overruns when she is the only speaker, it’s discourteous and unfair to the audience.
5. Keep speakers to time. Don’t congratulate them on the timing: it’s their job to finish on time, not something which merits praise. If you comment on the timing of the papers, it makes the session about you not them.
6. Before the session starts, tell speakers at what times you will warn them at (e.g. 5 minutes, 2 minutes, time up). Think too about how to warn speakers about timing; it’s not always physically easy (e.g. when someone uses a lectern). A hastily scribbled piece of paper can be hard for speakers to see: if you can, pre-print sheets or use a board-marker pen.
7. Keep questions and answers short, especially when several questions remain near the end of a session. Be firm, be fair. If you’ve asked for short questions and someone starts a four-parter, it’s your job to politely interrupt them. Don’t feel embarrassed: it is they who are being insensitive, not you.
8. Try not to ask your own questions unless needs be. (Needs sometimes be.)
9. Never collate questions: it’s spectacularly pointless. [UPDATE: I no longer agree with this. Collating questions can save time at the end. E.g. if you have five minutes left and three questions, there’s something to be said for giving each questioner 30 seconds, then letting panellists pick and choose what they respond to.] Be flexible about question order: if someone has already asked a question, she’s less important than someone who hasn’t.
10. Don’t overrun. Don’t overrun. Don’t overrun. Not everyone will want the session to keep going: some people will be bored, others will want a pee, a cigarette or some coffee. When time is up, time is up. In exceptional circumstances, break briefly to let some people escape before you continue.
The underlying principles are as follows:
(a) Speakers are more important than the chair.
(b) The audience is more important than the speakers.
(c) Timing matters.
(d) Think ahead.
(e) Be firm.
(f) Be fair.
Posted by Adrian Blau on March 10, 2014
https://adrianblau.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/10-tips-for-chairs-of-seminarconference-papers/
BlauBlog 