1. “There is no need any more to define the “quality” of a publication by just the percentage of rejection; it is also possible to flip that view and consider the number of people who were able to share their ideas as the basis of “quality” of a venue. ”

    Wow, that’s terrific. Expect resistance, of course, but not from me.

  2. Well, I have one of the smartest scholars in the world on my side already. I hope anyone who doesn’t like my argument will note that I said “also” and not “instead.” Thanks so much, Cynthia.

  3. Shyam thanks for bringing so much attention to non standard English speaking writers/students. I have been teaching these students for close to fifteen years and still struggle with the balance of encouraging them to keep an authentic voice and forcing them to repackage their thoughts in an acceptable way.

  4. Shyam, I do not know why, but I had written something about your post yesterday. It does not appear.

  5. Thank you, MaryAnn.
    You say you struggle to find a balance; those of us who struggle to do so do much better than those who know exactly what to do! Stony Brook’s students have taught me a lot more than I was aware of before I came here (mainly from the literature, which I had a hunch didn’t capture linguistic complexity very much).

  6. Pingback: Shifting Focus: Building ELT Practices and Scholarship from the Ground Up | Nelta Choutari

  7. Shyam, wonderful post and I agree with all of it (I will also share with my students who are working on creating something similar to Nelta Choutari at the moment). I agree with so much there, so I won’t pick 1-2 points – but the one that I think is very important yet problematic in the peer-review world is the “good writing can be written in bad English”. Ignore grammar, spelling, etc., for a while, and it’s obvious that this is possible. Someone can have a great idea but be unable to express it clearly in English. Someone can be able to express it in English but because they’re not native English writers, their writing style does not fit the linear conventions of English rhetoric. They might do it but use awkward expressions as you say.
    You’ve just inspired me with an idea I’ll share with my students. They wanted their website to give space for others to contribute. I’m going to suggest they start by inviting their colleagues in other courses who have written good blogposts to share them on this new website so that it’s about Egyptian teacher voices. Thanks again for this. And note that you published it like a month after Beyond Rigor was published – so great minds think alike :o))

    More comments privately :o)

  8. Maha, Thanks for the kind note and comments. Let me know if you or your students want to know about building the critical mass or about the collaborative process that we developed for Nelta Choutari.
    If I had read “Beyond Rigor” before I wrote this, I might have linked it (especially in the section where I discussed the idea of quality as inclusion and engagement). I don’t think that writers from the global peripheries can afford to be deliberately playful (a central issue in the article by Sean, Pete, and Jesse), but other than a common denominator regarding rigor as quality, my entire focus was the need to recognize/respect the voices of scholars and practitioners from the global peripheries. I share more with your article for Al Fanar (Take Advantage of Open Access Publishing) than with the one on HP, but this new find makes me think further about writing from the global peripheries and I will be writing more about it. Of course, now, there will be a whole group that might be addressing the issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *