|
||||
|
Picked up the latest copy of the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing in the post this morning, and threw it out within a few steps of looking at the Table of Contents. It was the same set of names on the cover as it was 10 years ago. Diversity isn’t the same as it ever was, and it’s just one more time that I find the academic business motto of “To be published in here, you must have been published in here before” more frustrating than rewarding.
I have a distinctive voice when writing in marketing. Dark cynicism and pop culture references are infused with a certain world view of marketing that few others in the academy have, and even fewer are prepared to commit to paper. As a marketer, this distinctive branding of my work, and the establishing position in the minds of the reader is the outcome of considered IMC, careful edits and a lot of hard work.
The downside is that I work in some distinctive fields (social marketing, internet marketing, political marketing), and I have a recognisable voice, plus a fast uptake of new ideas so that I frequently am the only authority in the field I’m publishing the third, fifth or seventh paper on, and it’s quickly obvious in double blind peer review when it’s my work, and when it’s not.
The strong brand is the antithesis of the double blind review which really seeks the strong bland in the pretence that somehow, a monotone of academic voices is the desirable future where novice and veteran voice reads alike, and you can’t figure out the author because you’re as verse in the field of their work as they are… either that, or I need to move out of the specialist field and hang around similar sounding authors for a while. |
||||
 This work by Dr Stephen Dann is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License. Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
