Page 23 - NYLS Magazine • 2015 • Vol. 34, No. 1

University Press. Can you reflect on any differences between academic journal publishing in the United Kingdom and in the United States?
To some extent, though some might disagree, the Cambridge University Press can no longer be considered British, at least with respect to journal publication.
It publishes a number of journals that
are edited in the United States such as Law and History Review, the Journal of British History, and Social Science History. Unlike American law reviews published
by law schools, which are generally under the control of law students, its journals
are faculty edited and peer reviewed.
In my reverie in the anniversary issue, “Reflections on thirty years of Continuity and Change,” I noted that the professionals at the Press imposed “exacting editorial standards.”
Do you recall the earliest period of history reported on in the journal, as well as the most recent?
Articles have spanned recorded history, and range widely geographically. The journal has published articles on the demography of the Roman Empire, largely ascertained from the use of burial monuments, to sex crimes in the Ottoman Empire, to disputes over marriage, paternity, and divorce in Algeria in the period after 1960.
Can you single out two or three articles over the journal’s history that strike you as groundbreaking in their scholarship or otherwise extraordinary?
The editors did choose 10 influential articles over the 30 years, but since one of mine was included, I must express
reservations about their judgment. Each article published is unique. It is the result of considerable (and often painstaking and painful) primary research, frequently archival, the assimilation of the existing historiography, and the framing of an argument. Each makes a significant contribution to our knowledge of a given field.
Over the course of the journal’s life, has the balance of emphasis in the articles shifted among social structure, law, and demography?
In my reverie in the anniversary issue, “Reflections on thirty years of Continuity and Change,” I categorize the articles in the first and last five years, and compare the subject matter that each article addressed over those years. I am happy to say the interdisciplinary cast that we strove for
at the journal’s inception continues to be realized. Legal history continues to be well-represented.
What goes into creating and growing a successful journal?
For Continuity and Change, it was,
as Churchill borrowed from Teddy Roosevelt, “blood, toil, sweat and tears.” Both Richard and myself had significant teaching responsibilities and research agendas. Reading dozens of articles submitted, sending the ones we felt worthy out for review, collating the responses, and editing the text took ghastly amounts of time. Fortunately, we were blessed with colleagues who shared that burden. I always told my colleagues nobody would undertake the burdens if they did not regard the enterprise in some perverse way as “fun.” All of us privileged to edit the journal were provided with a justification and an obligation to delve into topics
far removed from our core intellectual
interests. This liberty, I believe, has expanded our intellectual horizons and has had a salutary effect upon the quality of our own research.
How has technology changed the operations of Continuity and Change?
For editors, it has made the process of commenting and rephrasing articles much easier. It also speeds the production process after it leaves the hands of the editors and eventually becomes a bound volume.
Where do you see academic publishing going in the next 30 years?
With academic budgets under pressure, one cannot be optimistic. Many of the articles printed in the journal began their life as a conference paper. Participation
in conferences has declined as faculty research budgets have been eroded by design or inflation. But Continuity and Change was established in the mid-’80s, a period of significant decline in the funding of higher education. Bound copies of journals may disappear. Most articles are now read online or downloaded from the journal’s website.
Is there anything else you want to say about reaching this milestone?
As my own participation in the everyday running of the journal wanes, it is gratifying to see that a new generation of editors is committed to the intellectual mission. I am pleased that the journal’s future is in the hands of a prominent group of excellent scholars. My sense
of happiness in this accomplishment, however, is tempered by sadness that my co-founding editor, Richard Wall, is not here to share the glory. •
MEET THE AUTHORS 21