The Anonymous Leaders of Higher Education

Glenny, Lyman A.

doi:10.1080/00221546.1979.11779979

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

"Of the Main Chances Of Things As Yet Not Come To Life"1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

1979

1982

Publication Types

Select...

Article3

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent3

Authors

Journals

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…T o explain my conclusion I must first draw on the words of Flash (1965). Wilensky (1967), Glenny (1972), and Sabatier (1978). Each of these scholars has contributed much to the understanding of institutional research.…”

Section: "Of the Main Chances Of Things As Yet Not Come To Life"mentioning

confidence: 99%

From history observed one may prophesy

Tetlow¹

1979

New Drctns for Instit Rsrch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: "Of the Main Chances Of Things As Yet Not Come To Life"mentioning

confidence: 99%

From history observed one may prophesy

Tetlow¹

1979

New Drctns for Instit Rsrch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…By denying most tendered manuscripts, what is accepted falls within an acceptable but narrow scope. In this way is leadership exercised (Glenny, 1972), leadership cognizant of two major interacting constraints-the economic and local academic.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Marketing Scholarship

Silverman

1982

Knowledge

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When scholars transmit manuscripts to journal editors, they assume that their papers will be read by gatekeepers who have standing in their fields. Although editors may lack expertise in a subspecialty treated, broad field exposure supports the form of responsiveness: to return papers without benefit of external review or their transmittal to outside readers, the depth of suggestions for revision, and the degrees of affective support for authors who are encouraged to revise their work.The placement of scholarly book manuscripts, the focus of this article, poses quite different problems. Although large publishing houses employ staff editors with backgrounds in various scholarship domains, frequently the initial correspondence regarding a scholarl5 manuscript appears before an editor or press director who lacks disciplinary credentials. These individuals, whose specialty is &dquo;publishing,&dquo; and who have some understanding of different specialties (Mann, 1981: 104), decide whether an author's work will enter the full review process. Unlike the submission of the actual journal manuscript, authors describe their book manuscripts in letters and prospectuses and request permission to submit the full work for review.The purpose of this article is to elucidate the initial and most critical phase of the scholarly book review process, a phase overlooked by most commentators and which, when treated, typically suggests the exercise of objectivity. I would call such a label &dquo;mythical&dquo; (Orlov, 1976).Scholarly publishers commenting on the early phases of the review process either ignore the role they play or judgments they make, other than to select responsible referees (Harman, 1961), or espouse criteria in

show abstract

Systematic Information Sharing in Participative University Management

Smith

1980

The Journal of Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Anonymous Leaders of Higher Education

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

From history observed one may prophesy

From history observed one may prophesy

Marketing Scholarship

Systematic Information Sharing in Participative University Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About