address cross-field issues, concerns, or topics. (Blount 2006:463)
American Anthropologist welcomes work that bridges subfields or speaks to the interstices of subfields, but also recognizes that the vast majority of anthropological research lies squarely within one subfield. …A “lowest common denominator” approach that would require authors to frame research questions in a manner intelligible to all subfields is a near-impossible task…. Anthropologists not invested in a four-field vision of the discipline should feel welcome to publish in American Anthropologist. (Boellstorff 2008a:1)
Despite these stated differences, the balance between general and specific articles seems to me to have been about the same no matter who was editor.
The vision statements of editors usually included something about the importance of accessible writing for the journal’s diverse readership:
In order to increase readability, we will give close editorial scrutiny to diction, rhetoric, and clarity. We will go beyond copy editing into style editing, and to this end we will employ an editorial assistant with appropriate editorial skills. For the sake of readability across subfields, we will ask all authors to explain terms that have yet to gain a place in the general anthropological lexicon. (Tedlock and Tedlock 1993:24)
I believe that clarity of writing and minimal use of jargon are necessary in order to allow readers from all subfields and fields outside of anthropology easy access to articles and reviews within the journal. (Sussman 1998:605)
We will encourage contributions written in a language that we all, as trained anthropologists, can understand. We will work with authors to ensure that the language in which they present their work is comprehensible. (Mascia-Lees and Lees 2001:9)
We work through the editorial process to unpack subdiscipline-specific terminology and provide contextual information that will make manuscripts maximally intelligible to all readers without requiring that authors alter their research questions, analytic style, or writing voice. (Boellstorff 2008a:1–2)
Acceptance rates for articles remained fairly consistent at 20 to 25 percent through this period. Time between manuscript submission and initial decision was more variable. Mascia-Lees and Lees reported an average of two to three months; the Tedlocks said that it often took six months to get the three peer reviews they needed to make a decision.27
The work of editors was eased by a transition to online processing of manuscripts. AA began requiring electronic submissions during the editorship of Mascia-Lees and Lees. The move to Wiley-Blackwell in 2008 provided the journal with access to a good online manuscript control system, ScholarOne, for papers submitted as potential research articles.
Despite AA’s sometimes-turbulent recent history, the journal was in good shape when the position of editor-in-chief was advertised in 2011. Profit sharing from the Wiley-Blackwell contract had allowed the journal to publish substantial issues even while library subscriptions were declining. Under Tom Boellstorff’s editorship, the journal had instituted attractive new features while managing to avoid science-humanities controversies. ScholarOne allowed efficient, timely processing of submissions.
Nevertheless, the next editor would have to deal with many of the same questions that had challenged previous editors during the past half-century. What was the appropriate balance of articles among subfields, topics, geographic areas, and theoretical approaches? What was the niche of a general anthropology journal in a time of increased specialization? Did the idea of a four-field journal continue to make sense? How could authors be encouraged to write in an accessible way? How could the journal be further opened up to contributions from anthropologists from underrepresented minorities in the United States? How international should the journal seek to be?
New questions had arisen because of the rapidly changing publishing landscape. How could the journal have more of a digital presence? Was it still necessary to have a print version of AA? Would the AA continue to have the same level of support from its publisher and the AAA? What, if anything, did the concept of a flagship journal mean nowadays?
The job of the next editor-in-chief would not be easy.
Chapter 2
A Lot to Learn
Becoming AA Editor
For most of the people I interviewed … journal editorship has been … [an] accidental profession.
(McGinty 1999:13)
During the two months in early 2011 when I was thinking about applying for the AA editorship, I realized that I had not been paying much attention to the journal. When AA arrived in the mail, I would briefly look at the contents, noting any articles and book reviews that might be relevant to my research and teaching. Although I often cited material from AA in my publications and regularly assigned articles from the journal in my courses, I was not particularly knowledgeable about the contents of issues over the past two decades. I therefore decided to look carefully at what had been published in the journal in recent years.
I reached two general conclusions from my examination of past issues of AA. First, there was a significant history of conflict and tension between AA editors and the AAA. These problems sometimes arose because of the behavior of particular editors. But it also seemed to be the case that financial pressures at the AAA could lead the organization’s administrators to compel the editors to be more cost-conscious than they might like. Robert Sussman had quit as a result of such pressures; Fran Mascia-Lees and Susan Lees had seen significant cuts in the size of the journal. I knew vaguely that changes in the financial structure of publishing were affecting scholarly journals and worried that these developments might lead to difficult relations between the AAA and the new editor of AA.
My second general conclusion was that AA was doing well under Tom Boellstorff’s editorship. The new editor would not have to immediately make any significant changes in the journal. I had nothing but admiration for what Tom had been able to do after the sudden departure of Ben Blount, but I had no desire to repeat his experience of taking over a journal in serious trouble.
Although I remained concerned about how well I would get along with the staff at the AAA, I applied for the editorship in mid-April by sending a two-page letter and my curriculum vitae (CV) to Emilia Guevara of the AAA and Laura Graham. The letter included descriptions of my scholarly interests, publications, and editorial and administrative experience. In early June, I received a response from the search committee saying that “your initial statement and CV lead us to believe that you would be a very strong candidate for the position.” I assumed that this meant that I was on a short list of candidates who had passed an initial winnowing. The committee asked for a vision statement, two letters of recommendation, and information about potential institutional support by September 1. The letter was signed by Laura Graham and Virginia Dominguez, the president of the American Anthropological Association. Virginia, a good friend, was a former colleague at Iowa who had moved a few years earlier to the University of Illinois. I wondered if Laura and Virginia would later have to remove themselves from the search committee because of what might be perceived as conflicts of interest.
Before approaching administrators at Iowa, I decided to find out what support was currently provided for the journal. The publication of AA involves the paid positions of managing editor and editorial assistant as well as unpaid volunteer labor such as that provided by manuscript reviewers and the editorial board. Staff at Wiley-Blackwell are responsible for the production of the print and online versions of AA and assist with copy editing and proofreading.
My immediate concern was about support provided by the AAA and the
