Journal of Architectural Education Editorial Board Meeting 104Th
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Architectural Education Editorial Board Meeting 104th ACSA Annual Meeting Sheraton Seattle Seattle, WA March 17-19, 2016 Table of Contents General Information . 1 Meeting Schedule . 2 Meeting Agenda . 3 Additional Material Fall 2015 Meeting Minutes 71:1 call – Production 71:2 call – Environments Executive Editor Report Associate Editor, Design Report Associate Editor, Reviews Report Publisher’s Report JAE Policies Planning Matrix General Information Welcome to the Journal of Architectural Education 2016 Spring Editorial Board Meeting. As usual, we will convene during the Annual ACSA meeting. All of our meetings will occur at the Sheraton Seattle Hotel (1400 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101). If you are unable to attend the meeting, a skype connection can be provided. Please email Marc Neveu ([email protected]) if you wish to participate via skype. 1 Meeting Schedule Spring 2016 JAE Editorial Board Meeting 104th ACSA Annual Meeting Sheraton Seattle Hotel Seattle, WA Friday, 18 March 9:00 – 12:30 Design Committee Meeting Ravenna Design Committee 9:00 – 12:30 Reviews Committee Meeting Capitol Hill Reviews Committee 2:30 – 4:00 Editorial Board Meeting Capitol Hill Editorial Board, Monti, Reimers, Vonier, Gann, Sanders 8:30 Dinner Purple Café 1225 4th Ave. Seattle Editorial Board, Monti, Reimers, Vonier, Gann Saturday, 19 March 9:00 – 10:00 Production Meeting Ravenna-C Neveu, Kulper, Rupnik, Vonier, Gann 1:30 – 4:00 Editorial Board Meeting Capitol Hill Editorial Board, Monti, Reimers, Vonier, Gann 2 General Board Meeting Agenda Friday, 18 March Action Call to Order Neveu 2:30 pm Approval of Agenda Neveu 2:35 pm Approve Agenda Approval of Fall 2014 Minutes Neveu 2:35 pm Approve Minutes Executive Editor Report Neveu 2:45 pm Associate Editor, Design Report Kulper 2:55 pm Associate Editor, Reviews Report Rupnik 3:05 pm Senior Managing Editor Report Vonier 3:15 pm Impact Factor all 3:25 pm Other business all 3:45 pm Adjournment 4:00 pm Saturday, 19 March Action Call to Order Neveu 1:30 pm Policy Review all 1:35 pm ad hoc committee Technology | Architecture + Design proposal ACSA 1:45 pm Future Initiatives all 2:45 pm Thank outgoing members Neveu 3:45 Adjournment 4:00 pm 3 Editorial Board Meeting Minutes, Fall 2015 Journal of Architectural Education (JAE) Board Meeting Fall 2015 Editorial Board Meeting Portland State University October 3, 4, 2015 In attendance: Marc Neveu (Executive Editor – MN) Amy Kulper (AK) AnnMarie Brennan (AB) Christina Contandriopoulos (via skype) Mari Fujita (MF) Doug Jackson (DJ) Grace La (GL) Eric Mumford (EM) Alpa Nawre (AN) Ivan Rupnik (IR) Aaron Sprecher (AS) Tricia Stuth (TS) Georgeen Theodore (GT) Franca Trubiano (FT) Saundra Weddle (SW) Nora Wendl (NW) Absent: Mitchell Squire (not present) Guests: Michael Monti (MM) Pascale Vonier (PV) Carlos Reimers (CR) Saturday, October 3 Editorial Board Meeting Call to Order Approval of Agenda ACTION: To approve the Meeting Agenda supplied by MN Motion 1 From Doug, Motion 2 Grace All in Favor 1.0 Executive Editor Report SMLXL is out - complimented with material posted online, images oF peoples’ editions Call for general, non-theme issue, 131 total essays, in cf. 35 for SMLXL; 45 for design; 83 for SoD - A lot oF material we’re getting is very speciFic and peripheral so it is diFFicult to find critics and reviewers. - About 50% international and 50% From US. Sometimes not well written and specific contexts outside ACSA. - We would like to have two issues 70:1 Design as Scholarship only, including Discursive Images; 70:2 Scholarship oF Design to give more time to review all that work GL: Will confusion about these categories get worse if a whole issue is dedicated to either DaS or SoD? It would be different if we had begun with the intention of dedicating an issue to design, but now we are doing it reactively. MN: We could still combine them. AK: Agrees that it will be diFFicult and less cohesive than Design +. Could we do a double issue in March? MM: Taylor and Francis expects two discrete issues. MN: From the beginning oF his term, he wanted to be more intentional about theme issues. The pressure for the open call led to less coherence in the material that will be published. FT: What is the connection between quality and topics that are so peripheral? MN: Topics may not have relationship to what we do as teachers and as architects. CC: We need to have a strategy to do the best with the articles we’ve received. CC wants to reaFFirm the two types oF articles and making the clear distinction with two distinct issues. Make a strong editorial statement to posit a posteriori, to create a strong awareness oF the differences. GL: Design committee reviewed many that are promising but there will still be a lot oF major revisions. It’s a problem because timing is so tight. AK: The issue is not that there’s not enough; just that we want it to make a good impression with regard to SoD, and that takes time. That has been a big struggle. GL: IF we push it oFF a month, would that make a diFFerence? CR: How long is the pipeline From submission to publication? MN: Three months to acceptance and Four more to publication. Used to accept content on a rolling basis and it would sit and be neglected, creating a huge back log. When a theme issue came up something could be published that had languished For two years. Combinations oF themed and general content made it more conFusing and diluted. The way it is done now is more productive and allows us to deal with manuscripts in a timely way. This has helped our reputation. Pascale: November 6 the next issue has to go to the publisher. GL: Because oF this, we will have to roll out the Discursive Images Feature diFFerently. MN: Not changing the quantity oF articles that will be published in either category. Binary is made clearly and that will be good to Focus on design, and that will be an advantage. Decision: 70:1 for DaS, and 70:2 for SoD co-edited with Marc, AnnMarie and Saundra. MN: Associated Editors have agreed to continue For another year. 2.0 Associate Editor, Design Report AK: welcome Tricia and Mitchell to design committee. Thanks to design committee who just reviewed so many articles so quickly. 70:1 70:1 likely to have 2 micro-narratives and 9 DaS. Committee reviewed all submissions again except double rejects as a way to overcome problem that what gets through is not always what you want to endorse, but it’s perhaps the least objectionable. The committee is trying to prioritize work that will stimulate design discourse. Call For Discursive Images For 70:1: Need the entire board to work of the entire board to get students and Faculty to submit. Would like a keyword with an image. Discursive Images will include Student image and Faculty image category. An idea to get design content onto the web site, some in print and others online. Perhaps Faculty/Practitioners would include 200 words to accompany their image. AK will tweak the Call and share with the board; everyone should send Five emails. 3.0 Associate Editor, Reviews Report IR: Last issue there were 22 reviews, SMLXL was more careFully selected and curated with 9 + 2 curated, more online reviews, in general exhibits are going to go online. 70:1 8 in process + 2 new or expanded. New content: What Architects Do: Focuses on artiFacts generated by the discipline, including soFtware, legislation, materials, buildings, landscapes, how architectural knowledge is applied, to better reFlect a range oF architectural production. Example: theme For preFab connected to modular constructions; the goal is to develop a methodology in an iterative way. Goal is that in 2 or 3 issues with it will settle into its Format. No more than 14 book reviews/issue going Forward. MN: The reviews committee is now designed to take responsibility oF soliciting reviews off of one person; others could also suggest reviewers to Ivan. 4.0 Art Director Report New web site: ACSA is having a conversation about soFtware used For peer review. More than anything we’ve done, the more image-dense and re-organized web site has garnered the most comments. It’s visible and people understand that we’re trying to change the way we’re doing it. AK: the web site is now an excellent tool For JAE 101 presentations. The photography is very good and the curation is good. CC: in a recent editorial board meeting For another publication, JAE’s strong online content was noted as diFFerent From the printed, and praised. However, people wondered iF JAE has been changed to exclusively reviews because viewers only saw reviews that are dominant online. People miss the issue itselF; not clear For those who don’t know the journal. Essays could be pulled out as well. It was noted that there is a prominent link to the issue itselF, too. AN: Could online content be more interactive? Could there be a space for critical comments. SW: Would need to curate responses so that it’s not out of control. Mike Monti: ACSA is busy negotiating its relationship with NAAB. Strategic planning initiative should be completed by end oF March with input From editorial board. Carlos Reimers: As liaison From the ACSA publications committee to the JAE, is interested in the ways we encourage scholarship by being more inclusive and hopes to increase types oF venues in which scholarship comes out. ACSA should give clear standards oF what scholarship in architecture should be and how it happens diFFerently in diFFerent schools.