New Perspectives – 03/2019 – Full Issue open access – and journal moving to Sage in 2020

New Perspectives – 03/2019 – Full Issue open access

Benjamin Tallis announces that the journal will be moving to Sage in 2020


1. The Velvet Revolution Happened Yesterday

Alena Drieschová

Research Articles

2. Brexit and EU Legitimation: Unwitting Martyr for the Cause?

Paul Beaumont

3. How Quantum Ontology and Q Methodology Can Revitalise Agency in IR

Pinja Lehtonen

4. Forgotten Velvet: Understanding Eastern Slovakia’s 1989

Marty Manor Mullins


5. Russia and the World: 2019 IMEMO Forecast

Mark Galeotti, Cai Wilkinson, Alexander Graef, Paul Robinson, Glenn Diesen

6. Multiplicity and/as International Relations

Justin Rosenberg, Cameron Thies, Catarina Kinnvall, Alena Drieschová, Anatoly Reshetnikov, Benjamin Tallis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to New Perspectives – 03/2019 – Full Issue open access – and journal moving to Sage in 2020

  1. I can’t find the announcement about SAGE but while it allows easier article handling and publication schedules, it also means the company will want to make a profit somehow. How exactly, we will have to see when details are published. APCs? Subscriptions?

    • stuartelden says:

      I guess you should take it up with Benjamin Tallis, the editor. I do know from my experience with Foucault Studies a decade ago that journals outside of formal publishers find it really hard to operate. Open access is admirable, but there are a lot of costs associated with editing and publishing journals and these need to be covered somehow.

      • I have asked him. But as you know, I disagree – as would the entire Iberoamérican journals system, with minimal costs paid by any institution for hundreds of good social science OA journals, departmental and university based ones Academics volunteer their time and OA publishing is the norm, even for books.
        Since the dawn of the internet, the logic of a subscription journal charging libraries has looked shaky, as shown by Plan S, the US proposals to require immediate publication, the Cost of Knowledge campaign against Elsevier’s pricing, etc. And all have big publisher battles against them. In my view with 15 years of understanding publishing and editing behind me, We should be avoiding the five biggest companies that dominant the field if possible, running our own journals, challenging the system [too complex to go into here, but to do with costs], changing the implicit ratings of journal articles we give for hiring/tenure/promotion [by reading the work instead and judging it on its merits], refusing the STEM model of high cost/high APC publication, supporting library budgets by no more big Deals, and supporting movements like radicalopenaccess in the UK And that’s just for starters. Good NY resolutions though. Casey Walsh and I, and others like Kirsi Kallio at Fennia, the ACME team, and many others in the discipline are amazed that radical scholars don’t buy the argument about corporate control of our written words, and worry more about prestige of publication than ethics of publication. They continue to publish in conventional corporate journals and make no fuss [with the exception of a few, like Dick Peet]. If we can edit our journal JPE with no budget and get high citations/rankings, in a DIY/community publishing mode with minimal help from librarians [who are more radical on publishing models than most critical geographers I know], I am sure other could too. Nothing to lose but publisher profits, guilt, and retaining copyrights. Listing, comments welcome.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s