From Cosmopolitical Literature to Cosmo-panto-mimesis and "this strange institution called 'literature'": Kant, Borges, Derrida

Abstract : This paper was solicited and commissioned for publication by the guest editors, Sylvie Bauer and Anne Ullmo, for the journal, L'atelier, published out of U Paris Ouest Nanterre, under the general direction of Isabelle Alfandary, Richard Pedot and others. http://revues.u-paris10.fr/index.php/latelier/issue/current/showToc After the paper was submitted in March 2015 (in a longer version), several months elapsed, and then in the first days of June 2015 one (1) reader's report was given to me, the author. It recommended revisions, in particular cuts. The guest editors gave me 3 days to make revisions (on a Friday, I was told by phone to return the revised article on Monday). The paper was cut to its present size, and revised, respecting the 3 day revision period. A phone call one week later from one guest editor announced that the journal's advisory board refused the paper. This story contains very serious editorial breaches of conduct. 3 days were given for a revision. But for how long was the reader's report on the paper held by the editorial team prior to being given to the author? Did the reader's report only reach the editorial team when it was transmitted to the author (3 days from the revision date)? Or was the reader's report detained and retained by the editorial team, thereby making it impossible for the author to respond accordingly to them? The reader's report was also accompanied by the author's article upon which were added very numerous reader's comments, yet these comments of the evaluator were never shown to the author (although the evaluator's comments were surely intended for the author's inspection, and although the author was informed of their existence, by the guest editors, albeit never granted access to them). 1 reader report was given, but the 2nd reader report was never given to the author. A phone call announced refusal of the paper. The phone call asserted that the imminent publication date of the journal -- only one week away from the date of the phone call -- necessitated rejection of the paper: revisions were impossible, this time, to be made in one week! It was "not possible" to show the revised article to the evaluator (!). But 3 days had seemed to the editorial team a reasonable amount of time for the revision that was requested. The journal issue was published on September 20, 2015, more than three months AFTER the phone call to announce rejection of the paper because of lack of time for revision. The journal issue published on September 20, 2015, contains an added paper, the first in the journal, by the general editor of the journal, not coincidentally on one of the writers that my paper was devoted to. This paper replaced the rejected paper: http://revues.u-paris10.fr/index.php/latelier/issue/current/showToc This specially commissioned article was obviously requested in June 2015, and the author given three months to write it.
Document type :
Preprints, Working Papers, ...
Complete list of metadatas

Cited literature [10 references]  Display  Hide  Download

https://hal.univ-lille3.fr/hal-01202389
Contributor : Thomas Dutoit <>
Submitted on : Saturday, September 26, 2015 - 12:48:22 PM
Last modification on : Thursday, November 29, 2018 - 1:21:21 AM
Long-term archiving on : Tuesday, December 29, 2015 - 8:52:29 AM

File

Dutoit_Atelier_Revision_HALdep...
Files produced by the author(s)

Identifiers

  • HAL Id : hal-01202389, version 1

Collections

Citation

Thomas Dutoit. From Cosmopolitical Literature to Cosmo-panto-mimesis and "this strange institution called 'literature'": Kant, Borges, Derrida. 2015. ⟨hal-01202389⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

242

Files downloads

472