About "publishing Africa".

The personal odyssey of Steven Nelson in the world of publishing ("Publishing Africa," African Arts [First Word], Spring 2001, p. 1) is a recycling of complaints voiced by writers of "academic articles" in peer-reviewed journals. These are generic issues common to authors in the humanities and sciences. Why do they persist? Largely because editors and peer reviewers are human, and thus subject to weaknesses in experience, judgment, and wisdom. On the other hand, as an editor, I never met an author who was not convinced that his or her paper was a meritorious contribution to the field.

Nelson is worried about the bias of editors and readers. Reader bias can be dismissed if the editor and publisher really know what readers want. All too often, however, editors publish what they believe readers need. The editors whom I know are intensely concerned about their journal's image and prestige, measured by subscription numbers and the frequency of citation in the literature. As an editor-in-chief for more than twenty-four years, I am biased, if that means adhering to excellence, readability, and reader acceptance.

An academic journal will not long survive with an indecisive editor and a cosmetic editorial board of "stars." History shows that such publications are replaced with new and vigorous competitors. Nelson asks, "Do we need a new journal?" No, we need an established journal which is not strangled by academic ivy.

I read African Arts through the personal lens of a reasonably informed collector. When articles are stuck in the molasses of obscurity posing as profundity, I pass. There are authors whom I routinely skip rather than plow through a turgid morass of self-congratulatory prose. No, Steven Nelson, we do not need a new journal; we always need a better one. This responsibility belongs to the editors and to readers who are willing to express their views.

Nelson asks if editors and publishers should dictate subject matter and style. The answer is dependent on the scope of content, style, and production constraints. Authors are not naive souls just testing the journal's editorial policies so that a rejection will allow them to wallow as victims of an unfair system. If you believe that the paper is at the fringe of the journal's mission, call the editor and discuss the issue. I know of no editors who would fail to respond to such a request.

Finally, Nelson wants to know what is the responsibility of an editor to the writer and the reader. This issue has been long debated in the academic world. In a four-day symposium, "Editing the Refereed Scientific Journal: Practical, Political and Ethical Issues," held at Vanderbilt University in 1992 (published by IEEE Press, 1994), sixty-four editors embracing a broad sweep of the physical and biological sciences discussed all of the issues Nelson raises. Editors have a major responsibility to authors as advisors, mentors, and supporters of the peer-review system. Editor gratification comes from responsive authors.

The peer-reviewed journal remains the best approach to academic publishing we have at the present time. It can always be improved, and this is where reader participation is vital. You pay for a product which should be useful, and if it isn't, let the editor know. I have been told that we now live in the age of communication. Authors, readers, and editors--communicate!

Bernard M. Wagner, M.D.
Emeritus Editor, Human Pathology
Short Hills, New Jersey