Scholarly Reputation Research Articles

Essence of scholarship: Charting a path through the thickets of scholarly publishing

The history of scholarly journal publishing is generally dated from the appearance of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London in 1665. The notable features of this publication are that it is the property of a learned society, and at the time of its inception reflected the deliberations of the scholars of the day from across Europe. It gained its stature from contributions by members of the learned society and the esteem of a broader scholarly community that used it as a vehicle to exchange ideas. Since the inception of the notion of the 'scholarly journal', the number of journals, and the range of subjects covered, has proliferated dramatically. In addition, the model for journal publishing has moved from the historical learned society publisher through to the emergence of large commercial publishers who dominate the market. The rise of electronic publishing has made it possible for predatory publishers with no pretensions of quality to join the fray. The various journal databases currently list in excess of 30 000 reputable titles and with the emergence of open-access online journals, the number is being proliferated extravagantly and with little regard for the quality of what is published. For an aspiring scholar who is looking for a credible vehicle in which to publish his or her work, the choices are bewildering. But informed choices are crucial for establishing a scholarly reputation. Thankfully, help is at hand in the form of the work that has been done in South Africa to enhance the reputation of local scholarly journals.

A Great American Scholar of the Royal Navy? The Disputed Legacy of Arthur Marder Revisited

This article examines the scholarly reputation of the late Professor Arthur J. Marder. Once universally acclaimed as the doyen of historians of the Royal Navy in the First World War era, in recent times his work has come in for sustained criticism from a small group of revisionist historians, who not only dispute his conclusions, but argue that his entire methodology and approach were fundamentally flawed. This article assesses the specific charges of inadequate scholarship levelled against Marder by these revisionist historians and concludes that, while aspects of Marder's analysis may well be open to dispute, there are no grounds for attacking his scholarly integrity. On the contrary, he thoroughly deserves his reputation as a pioneering and painstaking scholar.

Corporate Holiness: Pulpit Preaching and the Church of England Missionary Societies, 1760–1870 by Bob Tennant (review)

Reviewed by: Corporate Holiness: Pulpit Preaching and the Church of England Missionary Societies, 1760–1870 by Bob Tennant Laura M. Stevens Bob Tennant, Corporate Holiness: Pulpit Preaching and the Church of England Missionary Societies, 1760–1870 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Pp. xii + 342. $105.00. This review is also a tribute, for Bob Tennant died on January 6, 2014, his sixty-fifth birthday, just two weeks after his book was published. Tennant’s posthumous scholarly reputation—especially in regard to his work on Anglican sermons, missionary societies, and the eighteenth-century bishop and philosopher Joseph Butler—will exceed the reputation he enjoyed during his lifetime, because most of his publications either came out in the years just preceding his death or are now in press. Tennant’s career followed a nonstandard path: he earned his doctorate in English literature from the University of London in 1970 and taught at the University of Sussex (where he had received his BA) until 1978; then, for more than two decades, he worked in London as a senior manager in adult education while being active in the labor and trade union movement. It was not until 2001 that he took up full-time scholarly research, first as Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Glasgow and then at the University of Durham. During these thirteen years, which included a term as Visiting Scholar at Baylor University, he was remarkably prolific, publishing two books, Conscience, Consciousness and Ethics in Joseph Butler’s Philosophy and Ministry (2011) and Corporate Holiness, along with several articles including two chapters in The Oxford Handbook of the British Sermon 1689–1901 (2012), a project for which he was a consultant editor. Corporate Holiness is a study of what Tennant calls “the operational ethos” of the Church of England’s three missionary societies in existence between the mid-eighteenth and late nineteenth centuries: The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), founded in 1698; the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG), an incorporated society chartered in 1702; and the Church Missionary Society (CMS), founded in 1799. The first two organizations shared founders, many members, and general sensibilities, with distinct but mutually [End Page 303] supporting purviews emerging from a wave of Anglican pastoral and reformist engagement spanning the turn of the eighteenth century. The SPCK’s projects included funding charity schools throughout Britain, providing chaplains for the East India Company, distributing religious literature at home and abroad, and supporting missions to India, many of which were staffed by Danish and German Lutherans. The SPG’s primary tasks were to supply ministers to colonial populations where the Church of England was not the established church, to assist with the conversion of African slaves, and to bring the gospel to indigenous heathen populations near colonial settlements. The CMS was one of several organizations launched by the Clapham Sect, an evangelical Anglican group best known for its abolitionist activism and its moral reform projects. Being “the prototype in a broad-front intervention in society by the Evangelicals” (95), with a stated mission overlapping those of the SPG and SPCK, the CMS occasioned some controversy and competition within the Church of England. The book’s title speaks to a core challenge faced by all three societies: the Church of England “had no obvious mandate beyond the nation,” and thus had a “corresponding constitutional need to justify missionary activity . . . to an extent unapproached by those of the Roman Catholic and Dissenting Churches” (284). The Anglican societies thus faced the task of crafting from scratch an extroverted missiology, with accompanying governing structures and methodologies. Tennant drew the phrase “corporate holiness” from Bishop of Gloucester William Warburton’s conception “of corporate holiness as an expression of national spirituality and practice, grounded on prophesy and the mutually reinforcing platforms of Church and State,” but even more so from Butler’s “projection of the personally ethical into the corporate” (287). This was not a static concept, for the societies’ identities, understandings of their missions, and structures altered over the 110 years covered by this book, while differences both subtle and glaring developed among the three organizations “about the Church’s role in relation to detached...

Editor’s Note

Editor’s Note William Blair Six years ago, the idea was born and refined. First came the call from the director of the University of North Carolina Press, which set things into motion. Then came meetings to hammer out details among the Society of Civil War Historians, the Richards Center, and the press. As so often happens, the best brainstorming came over food, in this case in a little barbecue shack in Charlotte, during the Southern Historical Association meeting. Two blinks of the eyes later, and we have finished our fifth volume year. And now I’ve decided it’s time for my tour as editor to come to an end. It amazes me how quickly this journal came together and how quickly it entrenched its reputation for attracting work of a high scholarly rigor. During startup, I had many moments of anxiety as we got the word out and recruited the research that launched this project. My mind kept perverting a line from the movie Field of Dreams: what if you build it and they don’t come? After all, a journal has a direct impact on the contributor’s livelihood—establishing the building blocks for tenure and a scholarly reputation. Departments that decide on tenure must trust that the journal screens its material professionally. Colleagues must consider it a publication to read, something to consult in order to see what is being done in the field. We were fortunate to receive validation of our efforts very early, through recognition by the Library Journal as one of the Top Ten new publications of 2011. But I must especially thank those authors who trusted us by putting their intellectual children in our hands, especially for that first volume year. And I am equally grateful for those who continue to do so now. The only way I know to assess how well we perform our jobs comes through the quality of submissions, which continues to impress. We work so far ahead that we have a good portion of volume year 2016 already laid to rest. Some of this has been recruited through special issues, such as the one we offer today on veterans of the Civil War, and the usual historiographical feature that updates us on the state of some corner of the field. These latter pieces, according to data from ProjectMuse, have a tremendously long shelf life and consistently garner the most hits. But the material that has come in lately renews my faith that the field remains incredibly vibrant, keeps attracting different kinds of scholarship, and pushes into fresh areas to explore. You have to take my word for it that good things are coming down the pike. [End Page 479] No effort of this magnitude involves one person. I have many people to thank. Kate Torrey threw her considerable support behind this effort. James Marten, Steven Engle, and David Perry provided input during that magical dinner. I am especially grateful to Judith Geisberg, Tony Kaye, and Aaron Sheehan-Dean, all of whom were instrumental in the founding of the journal and who each added significantly to the product. And I thank those on the editorial board who donated their time to read and recruit manuscripts. I also need to thank the supporters of the Richards Civil War Era Center who provided the resources for us to be a true partner with the University of North Carolina Press. It has been a joy to work with the truly thoughtful and professional people who make it such a quality press. The keys to the car are being turned over to an incredibly competent driver, Judith Geisberg of Villanova University. She was with this project from the start as the book review editor and demonstrated a keen editorial eye and organizational abilities. She knows the field intimately and has made her own contributions to the literatures on gender and race. Her book Army at Home stands as a singular treatment of common women in the North during the Civil War. And she shares the vision for this journal as a place to bring into conversation many of the subfields that animate nineteenth-century history—to reach out broadly to scholars who...

Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms

Structural changes to the scholarly environment are taking place as a result of the introduction of Web 2.0 technologies, which have given rise to Open Science 2.0 initiatives, such as open access publishing, open data, citizen science, and open peer evaluation systems. In turn, this is leading to new ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation through emerging platforms, such as ResearchGate. The article reports the findings of a survey of the opinions and practices of 251 European scholars about this emerging scholarly market. Findings showed that traditional research-related activities, including conducting and collaborating in research, taking part in multidisciplinary projects, and publishing in journals contribute most to scholarly reputation. The greatest weaknesses of reputational platforms were a lack of trustworthiness and being open to gaming. The large majority of researchers, despite some reservations, thought that reputational systems were here to stay and will become increasingly important in the future, and especially for younger researchers.

New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation

Learned PublishingVolume 28, Issue 4 p. 327-327 ErratumFree Access New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation This article corrects the following: New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation David NICHOLAS, Eti HERMAN, Hamid JAMALI, Blanca RODRÍGUEZ-BRAVO, Cherifa BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI, Tom DOBROWOLSKI, Stephanie POUCHOT, Volume 28Issue 3Learned Publishing pages: 169-183 First Published online: July 1, 2015 David NICHOLAS, David NICHOLAS Tomsk State University and CIBER Research LtdSearch for more papers by this authorEti HERMAN, Eti HERMAN CIBER Research LtdSearch for more papers by this authorHamid JAMALI, Hamid JAMALI CIBER Research LtdSearch for more papers by this authorBlanca RODRÍGUEZ-BRAVO, Blanca RODRÍGUEZ-BRAVO Universidad de LeónSearch for more papers by this authorCherifa BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI, Cherifa BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI Université de LyonSearch for more papers by this authorTom DOBROWOLSKI, Tom DOBROWOLSKI University of WarsawSearch for more papers by this authorStephanie POUCHOT, Stephanie POUCHOT Haute école de gestion de GenèveSearch for more papers by this author David NICHOLAS, David NICHOLAS Tomsk State University and CIBER Research LtdSearch for more papers by this authorEti HERMAN, Eti HERMAN CIBER Research LtdSearch for more papers by this authorHamid JAMALI, Hamid JAMALI CIBER Research LtdSearch for more papers by this authorBlanca RODRÍGUEZ-BRAVO, Blanca RODRÍGUEZ-BRAVO Universidad de LeónSearch for more papers by this authorCherifa BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI, Cherifa BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI Université de LyonSearch for more papers by this authorTom DOBROWOLSKI, Tom DOBROWOLSKI University of WarsawSearch for more papers by this authorStephanie POUCHOT, Stephanie POUCHOT Haute école de gestion de GenèveSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 October 2015 https://doi.org/10.1087/20150415Citations: 2AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume28, Issue4October 2015Pages 327-327 RelatedInformation

What’s in a Name?

What’s in a Name? Jeffrey R. Di Leo (bio) Juliet had a big problem. Her boyfriend had the wrong name. Infamously, she tried to explain it away. “‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy,” she said to Romeo. “It is nor hand, nor foot, / Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part / Belonging to a man,” continued the Bard’s young lover. The French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, glosses this line from Juliet as saying that Romeo’s name is “inhuman” or “ahuman.” “Not only does this name say nothing about you as a totality but it doesn’t say anything,” writes Derrida, “it doesn’t even name a part of you, neither your hand, nor your foot, neither your arm, nor your face, nothing that is human!” Juliet desires that arm, hand, and face, and aims to dissociate her Romeo from his name. There remains a strong connection—existential, essential, indexical, or whatever—between a person’s name and the person. Philosophers such as Plato, John Stuart Mill, and the early Ludwig Wittgenstein describe this connection as a solely denotative one. Others, such as Gottlob Frege, say that proper names both denote and connote, or in his parlance, have a “reference” and a “sense.” For him, when names denote they have both a sense and a reference, but when they do not denote, they may have “sense” (connotation) but no “reference” (denotation). My personal favorite philosophy of proper names comes though from the Princeton philosopher Saul Kripke, who said that proper names are “rigid designators,” meaning that they designate the same object in all possible worlds. Kripke even goes so far as to say that a name is attached to its bearer through a baptism of sorts, after which, it remains connected to its bearer regardless of any properties that may be attributed to that person. Hence, Nixon is Nixon even in possible worlds where he was not the president of the United States. Unlike Shakespeare’s heroine, who contends that the name of her beloved is something quite different than the young man with whom she is in love, most tend to believe that proper names denote and/or connote something. To dissociate a proper name from its object is to deny names their special nature. Names are strongly linked to identity, and are a crucial factor in developing a sense of self and interacting with the world. “By a name,” says Romeo to Juliet, “I know how to tell thee who I am.” The civil rights and women’s equality movements taught us to recognize the harmful and hateful legacies spawned by essentializing race and gender. These movements and others were synthesized into the precepts of political correctness that reminded us that regardless of race, class, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality, we need to treat all people equally and not prejudge them based on bias or stereotypes associated with their names. One of the ways that political correctness regarding “names” was encoded into the humanities was the practice of “blind reviewing.” This means that when one submits an article, story, or poem to a journal, it is read by the reviewer without knowing in advance the name and identity of its author. The hope here is that the article, story, or poem is judged on its merit alone, not on the basis of the name and identity of the author. Or, in Juliet’s terms, not on the grounds of an inhuman proper name, but on the human work generated by the bearer of the proper name. Names often lead us to prejudge works; works without names, texts, if you will, help us to avoid evaluation bias. While some, including literary critic Stanley Fish, disagree with this position, arguing that there is “no merit without bias,” most progressive journals today follow the practice of blind-reviewing in order to avoid even the perception of bias or favoritism. Fish argued in favor of bias in peer review because he wanted to reap the benefits that his name brought to his submissions. He worked long and hard at building up his scholarly reputation and having his name on his submissions ensured that all who read them would know that...

New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation

ABSTRACTThe article reports on a study of the views and actions of nearly a hundred scholars – mostly academic researchers from four European countries and four disciplines – in regard to scholarly reputation in the Science 2.0 age. It specifically looks at the role that 'emerging reputational mechanisms and platforms are playing in building, maintaining, and showcasing scholarly reputation in the digital age. Popular examples of such platforms are ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Data were obtained through one‐to‐one interviews and focus groups, supported by desk research. The main findings were: (a) it is early days and uptake is light and patchy with platforms largely used for non‐reputational purposes, such as sharing documents; (b) most users were passive and did not fully engage with the social aspects of the platforms; (c) the reputational focus was very much on just one scholarly activity (research), on just two outputs of that activity (publications and conferences) and one measurement of that activity (citations), but there are the stirrings of change; (d) young researchers are set to profit most from the emerging platforms.

Altertumswissenschaften zwischen kaltem Krieg und Studentenrevolution

This paper reconstructs the first two decades in the history of the Mommsen society which was founded in 1949/50 to assemble and organise academic representatives of classical studies in Germany. Immediately after World War II, the society aimed at securing the reintegration of German classical studies in the international community of scholars. Its policy was supported by German refugee scholars. For this reason, Bruno Snell, its inaugural president, who held the Chair of Classical Philology at Hamburg University, marginalised those classicists who compromised their political and scholarly reputation during the “Third Reich”. Later, the annals of the Mommsen society reflect the national and international consolidation of German classical studies, but also the acrimonious political and scientific relations between West and East Germany during the Cold War. Finally, the society was transformed into an exlusively West German institution. The Mommsen society also came to play an important role in the controversial debate on the impact of classical education in the West German society from the 1950s.

Full circle: Muslim women's education from the Maghrib to America and back

This study examines the relevance of nineteenth-century Maghrib scholarship models to the transmission of Islamic knowledge and information among communities of American Muslims in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Nana Asma'u 'dan Fodio (1793–1864) – scholar, teacher, poet, and activist – was actively involved in the trials and itinerancy of the Sokoto Jihad (1804–30), in which she was principally involved. Although she never travelled beyond her region (now known as northwestern Nigeria), her scholarly reputation extended throughout the Maghrib during her lifetime. This paper explains how Asma'u's reputation and work was spread from the Maghrib to the USA by American Qadiriyya groups that purposively modelled their own communities on that of the nineteenth-century Fodio family network, developing women's study groups based on Asma'u's model, the 'Yan Taru (The Associates), and using her educational materials in twentieth- and twenty-first-century-technological contexts.

Stephen Crane: A Life of Fire by Paul Sorrentino (review)

Reviewed by: Stephen Crane: A Life of Fire by Paul Sorrentino Kevin J. Hayes (bio) Stephen Crane: A Life of Fire, by Paul Sorrentino. Cambridge, ma: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014. x + 494 pp. Cloth, $39.95; E-book, $39.95. Stephen Crane: A Life of Fire has been a long time coming. The work Paul Sorrentino accomplished beforehand amply prepared him to write this biography, as there may be few better ways to prepare for writing a literary biography than editing an author’s letters. Sorrentino first established his scholarly reputation as the co-editor, with Stanley Wertheim, of The Correspondence of Stephen Crane (1988). The oddest aspect of this edition is its appendix, which reprints letters known solely from Thomas Beer’s Stephen Crane (1923), the first book-length biography of Crane and for decades the starting point for further research. Questioning the authorship of these letters, Wertheim and Sorrentino removed them from the chronological order of their edition but hesitated to exclude them altogether. The year after Correspondence, Sorrentino organized “Stephen Crane: A Revaluation,” a conference held at Blacksburg, Virginia. At this conference, Wertheim presented new findings, convincingly demonstrating that Beer had indeed fabricated those letters. I remember the conference well. Then a graduate student at the University of Delaware, I had driven down to Blacksburg eager to present a paper on how Crane wrote The Red Badge of Courage. Wertheim’s new information astonished me, especially since I had unwittingly quoted some of those fabricated letters. Happily, my session came after Wertheim’s, so I could revise my paper before I had to present it. At the United States Air Force Academy Stephen Crane conference commemorating the 100th anniversary of the publication of The Red Badge of Courage in 1995, Sorrentino presented a follow-up paper showing that Beer had not only fabricated the letters, but he had also invented many of his so-called facts. In short, Beer’s biography presents a huge stumbling block for any would-be Crane biographer. Not only must biographers exclude everything in Beer’s Stephen Crane, [End Page 224] they must also scrutinize everything published since Beer to excise any misinformation others have perpetuated or arguments based on Beer. One is tempted to say that the Crane biographer needs a good pair of Beer goggles, but a microscope might make a better metaphor. Sorrentino first told me about his plans to write a Crane biography at the Blacksburg conference. I got the impression that he intended to write a beefy tome, a work that could be recognized as the standard biography, but he had much additional background work before he could hunker down and write the biography. Wertheim and Sorrentino collaborated again on The Crane Log (1994), a work patterned on Jay Leyda’s innovative documentary biography, The Melville Log (1951). This project helped Sorrentino further prepare for his narrative biography, letting him sort fact from fiction and determine what happened when and how. In 2006, Sorrentino edited and published Stephen Crane Remembered, a collection of reminiscences from Crane’s friends, which helped him further prepare for his biography. When Stephen Crane Remembered was published, I thought to myself, “Okay, enough preparation: let’s see the biography.” At the American Literature Association Symposium on Biography held at Puerto Vallarta in late 2006, Sorrentino presented a progress report, announcing that as he now conceived it, his Crane biography would be a short work, not the long biography he had previously projected. At first, I was disappointed to hear about Sorrentino’s change in scope. I had been looking forward to his biography as the new standard. The more I considered the matter, however, the more I questioned the whole concept of a “standard biography.” Is there really such an animal? Or can there be many different biographies, all worthwhile but each with their own voice, audience, and purpose? Now, eight years after the American Literature Association Symposium in Biography, a conference that has been responsible for inspiring much excellent work in literary biography, Sorrentino has finally published Stephen Crane: A Life of Fire. While Sorrentino’s original concept for his Crane biography may have been too long and...

How do we know who we are when we’re online?

This short paper outlines an ethnographic project exploring how influence, reputation, and academic identity are circulated and enacted within scholarly online networks. Both academia and social networks can be said to be ‘reputational economies’ (Willinksy, 2010), but while scholars and educators are increasingly exhorted to ‘go online,’ those who do often find that their work and efforts may not be visible or understood within institutional contexts. This project utilizes ethnographic methods and a material-semiotic theoretical approach to explore and detail the ways in which networked scholarly reputations operate, circulate, and intersect with contemporary concepts of academic impact. The study aims to articulate the signals which ‘count’ towards influence and scholarly reputation in networked circles, and to explore the benefits and challenges that networked scholarly participation poses for contemporary academics who engage in it. Research into computer-based interactions has, for decades, suggested that online group members develop signals for status and credibility: Walther (1992) found “electronic communicators have developed a grammar for signalling hierarchical positions” (p. 78). More recently, Kozinets (2010) framed this status differentiation less in terms of hierarchy than “various strategies of visibility and identity expressions” (p. 24). Literature on networked scholarship is growing but has not as yet delved deeply into questions of how networked reputations, credibility, and status positions are produced, nor what implications these hold for conventional academic practices. This research investigates reputational strategies and practices within networked publics from a new literacies perspective, as a form of networked learning with the ethos of participatory culture. The paper explores the contexts, understandings, learning processes, and mediating technologies that have contributed to the development of participants’ outlooks and specific practices. Likewise, it also frames those practices and outlooks in relation to multiple circulating concepts of influence that intersect within academic networks. Through interviews and extensive participant observation within scholarly online networks, this project explores how interactions within scholarly networked publics intersect with conventional notions of academic identity, and offers a snapshot of the various ways in which online networks open up new possibilities for scholarly engagement, learning, identity expression and influence that may not be visible, legible, or available within the academy.

What Influences Stock Market Reaction to Sukuk Issues? The Impact of Scholars and Sukuk Types

There is a large expansion of sukuk, the shari’a-compliant alternative mode of financing compared to conventional bonds, in the recent years. We analyze if the stock market reaction to sukuk issues is influenced by two key features of these instruments: the sukuk type, and the characteristics of scholar advisors. To do so, we use the event study methodology to measure abnormal returns on a sample of 131 sukuk from eight countries over the period 2006-2013. We find that Ijara sukuk has a positive influence on the stock market reaction. We observe that reputation and proximity of scholars exert a positive impact on the stock market reaction following sukuk issue. Overall our results support the view that the choice of sukuk type and of scholars hired to certify sukuk matters for market valuation of the issuing company.

What a difference a colon makes: how superficial factors influence subsequent citation

Getting cited is important for scholars and for the institutions in which they work. Whether because of the influence on scientific progress or because of the reputation of scholars and their institutions, understanding why some articles are cited more often than others can help scholars write more highly cited articles. This article builds upon earlier literature which identifies seemingly superficial factors that influence the citation rate of articles. Three Journal Citation Report subject categories are analyzed to identify these effects. From a set of 2,016 articles in Sociology, 6,957 articles in General & Internal Medicine, and 23,676 articles in Applied Physics, metadata from the Web of Knowledge was downloaded in addition to PDFs of the full articles. In this article number of words in title, number of pages, number of references, sentences in the abstract, sentences in the paper, number of authors and readability were identified as factors for analysis.

A Story of Love and Debt: The Give and the Take of Linguistic Fieldwork

When a linguist goes into the field to work with a previously undescribed language, they aim at discovering what the language is like. What we linguists take away is knowledge—reflected in our publications, presentations and scholarly reputation. What we also get is the feeling of love for the languages and for the people, and the sense of indebtedness for what we learn and get given. The language communities expect us to produce dictionaries, story books and pedagogical materials. Academia and the communities place different expectations on linguists engaged in fieldwork research. I examine these, using the example of my own fieldwork with the Tariana, an Arawak-speaking group in the multilingual area of the Vaupés River Basin in north-west Amazonia (Brazil). The focus of the paper is a pedagogical workshop jointly run by myself with my Tariana-speaking adopted family.

Sharing Data is Hard!—But Worth It

Sharing Data is Hard!—But Worth It

The 'Real' Marianne? – Commentary on the Meurer-Hanke Dispute

[MWS 13.1 (2013) 81-85] ISSN 1470-8078 The 'Real' Marianne?— Commentary on the Meurer-Hanke Dispute Christopher Adair-Toteff Bärbel Meurer is the scholar who has probably done the most to bring attention to Marianne Weber; beginning with her 2004 con ference collection and then with her recent biography of Marianne. Marianne Weber. Leben und Werk has been mostly well-received, but a few scholars have raised some objections. One of these schol ars is Edith Hanke, who, like Meurer, has a solid, scholarly repu tation. Hanke's reputation is based upon a number of things: she is the General Editor of the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe, was the co-editor of the MWG volume on 'Herrschaft' (2005), and was the author of an article on Marianne Weber's posthumous dedication to her husband's work (Hanke 2006). Hanke's review essay of Meurer's book appeared in issue 11.2 of Max Weber Studies, and it prompted Meurer to write a lengthy rebuttal which appeared in issue 12.2. Meurer objected to Hanke's comments about Marianne's personal life, her political and academic work, and especially about her schol arly influence on Max Weber. While I try to avoid entering into such conflicts, I believe that I have an obligation to the facts to do so here. I believe that I have standing to do so because Meurer points to my favorable review essay of her book in Contemporary Sociology (2011). I hold both Meurer and Hanke in high regard so I consider it my duty to evaluate their various criticisms. Meurer spends considerable time and effort in her book setting out Marianne Weber's personal life, before, during, and after her life with Max. She succeeds rather well, a point that Hanke agrees with: she writes that 'Meurer's descriptions are wonderful' and she notes that 'Meurer's book offers a bold counter-thesis to Joachim Rad kau's biography of Weber' (Hanke 2011:141,145). Radkau's book is a highly speculative psycho-biography, so it is rather surprising to read that Meurer thinks that Hanke 'objects' to her well-researched© Max Weber Studies 2013, Clifton House, 17 Malvern Road, London, E8 3LP. 82 Max Weber Studies book (Meurer 2012: 262). What is less surprising is Meurer taking issue with Hanke's portrait of the Weber's marriage; Hanke empha sizes that it was primarily 'one characterized by fate and responsi bility' while Meurer stresses that it was one characterized by love and respect—they are not mutually exclusive. Given that Hanke's essay on Marianne details her tremendous sense of obligation to the memory of her husband, this is somewhat understandable, but she seems to minimize the genuine love and affection that Marianne and Max obviously had for each other—a point that Meurer makes rather well. Meurer also does a good job in setting out Marianne's efforts to gain educational equality for women and she convincingly demon strates how Marianne's work on behalf of the women's movement connected to her political interests. Hanke praises Meurer for provid ing 'superb details' about Marianne's work in these areas but reason ably asks whether it might have been more interesting to hear more about Marianne's actual speeches and their specific contexts. (Hanke 2011:143-44). As Guenther Roth has shown, Marianne's reputation did not rest on political power, but on her 'intellectual respectability and moral high-mindedness' (Roth 1995: xvii). There should also be no doubt about Marianne's academic accom plishments. Theresa Wobbe writes about their importance and she calls Marianne's Ehefrau 'classical' (Wobbe 1998: 153). Meurer pro vides a detailed bibliography: 100 titles, including eight books, and numerous essays. As a result of her editing of Max's writings as well as authoring Ehefrau und Mutter Marianne was awarded an hon orary doctorate from Heidelberg, which, as Hanke wrote 'a strik ing accomplishment for a woman without final school exams and a degree!' (Hanke 2011: 144). Hanke further notes Meurer's concern was to stress that Marianne's writings were her own and that Max's influence on his wife's work was relatively minimal.1...

From Melancholia to Prozac: A History of Depression by Clark Lawlor

Health & History ● 15/2 ● 2013 125 what they believed was a contagious disease, Chapter 3 argues that in actual practice, army doctors drew on both western medical practices and traditional medicine to treat their patients. In this way, the book also provides a window to the transition from East Asian traditional medicine to scientific medicine, and evidence of medical pluralism (which continues to this day.) In 1921, Ōmori Kenta, professor of medicine at Keiō University Medical School presented his research findings that beriberi was caused by a lack of vitamin B in the diet (Chapter 5). After continued resistance, by 1939, the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s Department of Public Health and Prevention moved to standardise rice milling to ensure that people received enough of the vitamin. The outbreak of war with China in 1937 meant that the Japanese government had to take decisive action (Chapter 6). This book is arguably one of the most significant studies published in English on the history of Japanese medicine since William Johnston’s magisterial study of The Modern Epidemic: A History of Tuberculosis in Japan (Cambridge, Mass: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University, 1995). It is engagingly written, with each chapter beginning with an historical episode that throws light on the concerns of each chapter. The content is very accessible with no prior knowledge of Japan or medicine required. At the same time, it offers a sophisticated study of a complex topic. As the author so convincingly shows, at stake was not only the lives of soldiers, the health of the nation, and the good of the empire, but also scholarly reputations. MORRIS LOW UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND Clark Lawlor, From Melancholia to Prozac: A History of Depression (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). ISBN 978 0 19 958579 3 (HC). xi + 265pp. This elegantly written book begins by vividly describing the lifelong miseries of body and mind that afflicted Samuel Johnson, the great eighteenth-century lexicographer and critic. Physically Johnson was a large man who suffered from a multiplicity of ailments that ‘gave a gloomy cast to his whole course of thinking’. He was also haunted by the events of his childhood, the terrors of which we can 126 BOOK REVIEWS only guess. Visiting the town of his birthplace, the aged and ailing Johnson alarmed friends by visiting a local market place, where he stood a considerable time in the cold, pouring rain, doing penance for refusing to look after his bookseller father’s stall, when it stood on the same spot over fifty years before. Much of the first half of this book draws on a variety of texts, from the Graeco-Roman era to our own times, to fashion equally engaging and sympathetic portraits of men and women tortured by the anxiety and overwhelming sadness that we now know as depression. Chapter 1 explores a range of Greek literary and medical texts, focusing in particular on the Galenic tradition of accounting for abnormal behaviour as stemming from humoural imbalances within the bodily economy. The author also draws attention to the long-lasting idea that melancholy was all too often essential to genius, having its origins in Aristotelian thought. They note too that with Christianity, depressive illness additionally came to be understood in terms of personal consciousness of sin and attendant fears of damnation. Chapter 2 traces discursive representations of melancholia during the early modern period, drawing attention to the persistent, but not unchanging nature, of Galenic psychology and the Aristotelian notion of melancholy as essential to intellectual and artistic creativity. The chapter convincingly uses the dramatic example of Hamlet to illustrate the complexities of accounting for anxiety and sadness by the early sixteenth century. Chapter 3 covers relatively well-known ground, explaining how the new physics of the seventeenth century informed the way in which the nature and causation of profound sadness and anxiety were understood in western European scientific and wider intellectual circles. Older, Galenic humouralist physiology was now synthesised with perceptions of the body as essentially a mechanical system, animated by the same forces sustaining observable regularities in the physical universe. By the mid-eighteenth century, this explanatory framework had undergone an important shift to encompass the idea...

Editor's Note

Editor's Note Jennifer S. Tuttle, Editor As I write this note, Legacy is in the midst of many changes. Foremost among them is the departure of coeditor Nicole Tonkovich. Nicole has served the journal in multiple capacities: Having signed on as a consultant/ reader in 1996, she became a member of the editorial board, then a coeditor, and then editor in chief in 2006. When she stepped down from that position in 2012, she graciously agreed to remain as a coeditor during our time of transition. With this issue we bid her farewell and express our deepest thanks for her seventeen years of service. It is difficult to overstate the positive impact she has had on Legacy. Under her editorship, every aspect of the journal has become more innovative, more rigorous, more theoretically astute, and more polished. She possesses rare talent as an editor—that is, as a close reader and shaper of prose. But more than that, she is committed to mentoring those of us who have had the pleasure to work with her, nurturing our development as editors (and writers) as well. Her vision and skill have left an indelible mark on the journal. We are grateful that she has agreed to serve along with former editor Sharon M. Harris as a consulting editor, ensuring that we will continue to benefit from her insight and expertise. While we are sorry to lose Nicole as a coeditor, we are thrilled to announce that Susan Tomlinson has accepted our invitation to step into the role. Susan has a long and distinguished history at Legacy, having served the journal as both a consultant/reader and a member of the editorial board. Her careful and collegial reviews of Legacy submissions have shaped the field and provided untold benefits to scholars and subscribers alike. She brings a wealth of experience in editing and publishing, a distinguished scholarly reputation, as well as a great store of positive energy, and we look forward to working with her. In this issue I must also announce two more departures. First, Robin L. Cadwallader is stepping down from her posts as managing editor and features editor. Robin has been a pillar at Legacy since 1996, having served as a consultant/reader as well as shouldering enormous responsibility in her two editorial capacities. She has helped to shape every aspect of the journal, from the broadest questions engaging the field to the finest points of style, punctuation, and layout. We are honored that she has agreed to join the ranks of our consulting [End Page ix] editors. Our second departure is Assistant Editor Lisa M. Thomas, who has shaped and honed Legacy's offerings with uncanny skill and accuracy. We are deeply grateful to Lisa for the care with which she has verified citations, checked quotations and transcriptions, chased down obscure sources, mastered even the most arcane rules of mla and Legacy house style, and attended to every last detail at the sentence level. Both Lisa and Robin have helped to establish Legacy's reputation for superb editing and conscientious scholarship, and we thank them for their generosity and skill. Stepping into the roles vacated by Robin and Lisa are our new features editor, Desirée Henderson; our new managing editor, Mary I. Unger; and our new editorial assistant, Amber LaPiana. We are grateful to welcome them, and we admire and appreciate their scholarly distinction, editorial acumen, and positive spirit of collegiality. Desirée has long served the journal as a board member, consultant/reader, and contributor, and she brings to her new position an established commitment to theoretically rigorous recovery work. Mary and Amber are both highly regarded for their previous editorial contributions to learned journals as well as for their own scholarly achievements. Legacy is lucky to have such accomplished editors in its service. Because this issue of Legacy took shape throughout this period of transition, all of our departing editors share with our existing and incoming staff the credit for bringing it to fruition. Each issue comes together, of course, only through the commitment and careful work of many individuals, and I am grateful for the contributions of everyone on the masthead (including our editorial...

Reputation Based Academic Evaluation in a Research Platform

Researchers have to face with huge information in their daily works. It is hard for them to screening for valuable information from huge volume of data. Reputation of literatures, publications, or scholars can help the researches to relieve their puzzle and advance their research ability. In this paper, the problem of screening is presented in a realized research platform. Reputation is modeled by synthesizing four elements: literature, author, source and reader. The perceptible interactions, such as reference, comment and P2P communication is considered to be the relationships between each pair of elements and help improve the accuracy of reputation. The reputation we build is similar to impact factor and PageRank, but it is more complex and is expected to be more robust in realistic environments, which has been proved by simulations. An iterative algorithm is introduced to evaluate reputation in a distributed mode. Simulations prove the practicality and effectiveness of the scheme we have proposed.