|
Statement to the Policy Board
by Anthony Auerbach on the occasion
of a meeting to discuss questions
concerning the editorial policy
of JVE, 14 March 2008.
 In
this document I would like to explain my aim
in coming here and the context.
I am not here because of a complaint or because
of a dispute. I want to make some constructive
suggestions about how the editorial process
can be improved to benefit both the institution
and the researchers whose work is at the centre
of this process.
I am here on my initiative and do not claim
to represent the views of researchers in general.
However, I am informed both by my own experience
of the EB and by my discussions with other researchers.
I intend to report on this meeting to my colleagues
and I hope it will open the way to an inclusive
discussion about editorial policy at JVE.
To help me report accurately to my colleagues
I am writing this memo and would like to introduce
two documents below. Firstly my e-mail to Koen
Brams which followed a researchers’ meeting
called by Koen Brams. Here I made a specific
suggestion about clarifying one aspect of editorial
policy and added some comments about the process
in general. Secondly, my e-mail to Koen Brams
in which I expressed some concern about the
conduct of this meeting.
The present situation does not appear to be
conducive to a fair and impartial hearing of
the matter, nor to a credible decision-making
process. It would be better if the person who
should answer for the EB, were not also the
chair of the Policy Board. It would be better
if the person who answers for the EB were not
one who also claims to judge my research inside
the EB. It would be better if the chair of the
Policy Board were not also the head of the administration
and hence the employer of all the members of
the board. It would be better if, in his capacity
as head of the administration, the chair of
the Policy Board did not claim the right to
overrule the decisions of the Policy Board.
In this situation, it seems to me, all responsibility
disappears and my position feels very insecure.
The documentation of the policy of the JVE
is in parts incomplete, inconsistent and confusing
(for example: in cases of clumsy use of English,
apparent contradictions of fundamental rights,
apparent disregard of basic standards of public
administration). Calling attention to the way
editorial policy is expressed and managed, of
course, brings up some more general issues.
I would also be happy to discuss them.
2 documents follow.
 From: Anthony Auerbach
To: Koen Brams
Date: 11 Dec 2007 15:54
Subject: Rearchers' meeting
Dear
Koen
Thank you for taking the
time to call the meeting today.
I think it was very useful to hear a discussion
of various approaches and opinions about matters
of concern to researchers.
I have discussed the idea of an informal reserachers'
meeting during the opening week with Madeleine.
I hope this will be a useful meeting for new
researchers and second-year researchers alike
and will help focus the agenda of future meetings
with you.
I propose below a paragraph which I think would
make clearer the distinction between Department-funded
and EB-funded projects.
Requests for financial assistance for research
activities, productions and publications should
be addressed to the researcher's department
when the total amount requested does not exceed
3500 euros. Projects requiring funding of more
than 3500 euros should be addressed to the Editorial
Board. The Editorial Board will finance up to
75% of the total budget of the project. At least
25% of the total budget of the project must
be guaranteed by the researcher or secured form
other funding organisations or sponsors. The
Editorial Board would like to indicate that
projects whose total budget is around 5000 euros
(i.e. including the researcher's contribution)
are most likely to succeed because this allows
the Editorial Board to distribute the available
funds as widely and fairly as possible. However,
the Editorial Board does not wish to exclude
projects totalling more than 5000 euros, provided
sufficient justification is offered by the researcher
and agreed by the Editorial Board. Collaborative
projects will be assessed for financial reasons
on the basis of the funding required per individual
researcher, without prejudice to the collaborative
nature of the project.
I hope you agree this would remove the ambiguity
in the current document.
I would like to add the following comments
which could help clarify other aspects of the
procedure described in the researchers' affairs
document.
1. It would help if the EB published its 'general
policy relating to research and production' (3.
The Editorial Board, 2nd paragraph). This would
help researchers prepare appropriate proposals
and make the whole procedure more transparent
and efficient.
2. Terms such as 'judgement' should be removed
from the document and from the announcements
of the Editorial Board. When there is no explicit
policy, then such 'judgement' can only be perceived
as arbitrary. The notion of judgement cannot
be justified by appeal to customs and usages.
In is not appropriate for staff members to pre-judge
proposals to the Editorial Board (3rd paragraph).
The co-ordinator of artistic productions should
have the means to help researchers prepare appropriate
proposals in accordance with the 'general policy'
in the most flexible manner.
3. What is referred to as the 'content' of
a proposal is ambiguous and confusing. It seems
to cover what is properly content, i.e. intellectual
and artistic matters, as well as what is properly
project management. Feedback from the Editorial
Board and (advising) researchers is welcome
and appropriate at the development stage. The
development stage should not exclude budget
considerations and estimates, because a proposal
must also make sense financially. The Editorial
Board should be able reach a firm decision at
the end of the development stage and guarantee
the funding subject only to the finalisation
of the production details and approval of the
budget in accordance with parameters set by
the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board must
impose standards for project management and
financial responsibility, but these should not
be confused with content.
I hope that in these comments I have understood
correctly the intentions of the Editorial Board
and you will find them useful in communicating
these intentions to researchers. The issues
I have raised seem mainly to stem from clumsy
formulations in English. I would be glad to
be of assistance in refining the document which
will be given to researchers.
The question of the borderlines between professional
input (what people who are not researchers get
paid for) and research input into a production
is a complicated one and requires further discussion.
At the moment there is no clear way of determining
the researcher's input into a project relative
to the insitution's direct and indirect investment
in it (on the strength of which the institution
claims a lingering financial interest).
With best wishes
From: Anthony Auerbach
To:
Koen Brams <koen.brams@janvaneyck.nl>
Date:
5 Jan 2008 11:36
Subject: Re: Rearchers' meeting
Dear Koen,
Thank you for your note of 11 December. I would
like to attend the meeting of the Policy board
on 11 January to explain the proposals and comments
I made following the Researchers' meeting, concerning
the Editorial Board. Clearly you are not the
right person to present these comments to the
Policy Board, since you are directly concerned
with these matters in your other role as chairman
of the Editorial Board. I trust you will circulate
the contents of my e-mail to the other members
of the Policy Board in advance of the meeting
and that you would not like any conflict of
interest to arise in the Policy Board discussion.
There should be some way in which you can step
back from your role as chairman of the Policy
Board to explain the conduct of the Editorial
Board.
Please tell me what time is the Policy Board
meeting. I hope it doesn't clash with Opening
Week presentations which I would like also to
attend.
With best wishes
 ...
questions concerning
the editorial policy of JVE
|
