Editorial board policy statement

1973 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-220
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPHER B. BALME

With the publication of this issue my period as editor of TRI comes to an end. I was fortunate in being able to inherit from my predecessor, Brian Singleton, a flourishing academic journal that had attained a reputation for academic excellence combined with a broad international perspective. I am often asked to define TRI in comparison to other affined periodicals. This is a difficult but nonetheless important question, not only for the editorial board but also for potential authors. If we look at the policy statement (on the inside back cover) then we find a very broad remit: ‘articles on theatre practices in their social, cultural, and historical contexts’ but also, and perhaps more particularly, a desire to reflect ‘the evolving diversity of critical idioms prevalent in the scholarship of differing world contexts’. The last three words are perhaps the most important in respect to the journal's specific focus. TRI is dedicated to reflecting theatre and performance internationally; it gives special preference to articles outside the usual Euro-American mainstream. In this sense the journal aims to reflect the diversity of the membership of the International Federation for Theatre Research/Fédération internationale pour la recherche théâtrale. It is not, however, a mouthpiece of the organization or any of its constituent bodies. Editorial independence is essential for the functioning of any peer-reviewed journal lest it be seen as catering to interest groups or persons whose political prowess may far exceed their scholarly standing.


1995 ◽  
Vol 153 ◽  
pp. 5-8
Author(s):  
Andrew Britton

At the end of June the Labour Party's Economic Policy Commission presented a consultation document called ‘A New Economic Future for Britain: Economic and Employment Opportunities for all’. This assessment of Labour's current policy position is based mainly on that report. It has benefited from discussion with representatives of the Institute's Corporate Members and with the Editorial Board of the Review, but the views expressed are my own. I look first at the general philosophy underlying the policy statement, and secondly at the specific proposals it contains.


2016 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-375

Many papers submitted to the Edinburgh Journal of Botany are reviewed by members of the Editorial Board and Editorial Advisory Board. The members of both Boards wish to express their thanks to the following, who have also kindly reviewed papers during the preparation of this volume.


1990 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
M. J. Brown

From this issue, Clinical Science will increase its page numbers from an average of 112 to 128 per monthly issue. This welcome change — equivalent to at least two manuscripts — has been ‘forced’ on us by the increasing pressure on space; this has led to an undesirable increase in the delay between acceptance and publication, and to a fall in the proportion of submitted manuscripts we have been able to accept. The change in page numbers will instead permit us now to return to our exceptionally short interval between acceptance and publication of 3–4 months; and at the same time we shall be able not only to accept (as now) those papers requiring little or no revision, but also to offer hope to some of those papers which have raised our interest but come to grief in review because of a major but remediable problem. Our view, doubtless unoriginal, has been that the review process, which is unusually thorough for Clinical Science, involving a specialist editor and two external referees, is most constructive when it helps the evolution of a good paper from an interesting piece of research. Traditionally, the papers in Clinical Science have represented some areas of research more than others. However, this has reflected entirely the pattern of papers submitted to us, rather than any selective interest of the Editorial Board, which numbers up to 35 scientists covering most areas of medical research. Arguably, after the explosion during the last decade of specialist journals, the general journal can look forward to a renaissance in the 1990s, as scientists in apparently different specialities discover that they are interested in the same substances, asking similar questions and developing techniques of mutual benefit to answer these questions. This situation arises from the trend, even among clinical scientists, to recognize the power of research based at the cellular and molecular level to achieve real progress, and at this level the concept of organ-based specialism breaks down. It is perhaps ironic that this journal, for a short while at the end of the 1970s, adopted — and then discarded — the name of Clinical Science and Molecular Medicine, since this title perfectly represents the direction in which clinical science, and therefore Clinical Science, is now progressing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document