** Review, an average of two minutes per article?
Hou Kaijia. Yan Zhenqing's calligraphy has always been the object of my research and attention. At present, there are a lot of research results on Yan Zhenqing's regular script and calligraphy, and in recent years, there are many people who have dabbled in the study of Yan Zhenqing's "broken body" calligraphy, but I think the research on Yan Zhenqing's cursive script is lacking. Therefore, I wrote an article called "Yan Zhenqing's Discrimination in Cursive Writing". It just so happens that the Hunan Provincial Calligraphy Court will hold a special academic exchange activity on the study of Yanti calligraphy style, which will be solicited from all over the country. I just submitted it.
Not long ago, the academic ** review was announced, and the humble essay was unsuccessful. I paid attention to the process of reporting on this academic review: "A total of 73 articles were received. From 9:00 to 12:00, the first evaluation will be conducted. All submissions have been reviewed by the judges one by one, and each judge votes in the form of a signature on the preliminary evaluation form (those who get two votes are shortlisted), do not meet the requirements, and the judges who have doubts also sign comments, and after the hard work of the judges, 51 articles were selected as finalists. It can be seen that within 3 hours, the judges have to review 73 articles, and they also have to sign, write comments, discuss and decide on the shortlist, etc., and the average time for reviewing ** is almost two minutes each. Can you read 5,000 words in two minutes? I don't have the skills to do that anyway. I generally know the judges hired by this academic ** review, and it is not difficult to understand the review situation afterwards. It is reported that some judges thought that the article I wrote was "off topic", so it was won in the initial evaluation. This makes me a little confused, how can I digress?
The Hunan Provincial Calligraphy Court made serious arrangements for this event, such as hiring a famous calligraphy theorist as an academic host. The judges are all influential theorists in the academic world. And hire a special person to set up a review supervision and supervision team to supervise and review the review activities. Moreover, the academic ** of the review adopts the pseudonym system, conceals the author's identity information for blind evaluation, and finally checks the duplicate of the ** evaluated, which are the normative measures in the academic review, and are the result of the continuous improvement of the review mechanism in the academic review over the years. These arrangements made by the Hunan Provincial Book Court are commendable. However, this review also exposed that there is still room for improvement in the current academic review mechanism, such as the arrangement of the review time. Academic review is different from other review work, has its own characteristics, it is a detailed work, need to have a relaxed time for review, can not be short, flat, can not be drastic.
This time, I participated in the submission of the academic ** of "Calligraphy Huxiang", and the initial evaluation was frustrated, and I had some regrets. However, I found that there is still room for improvement in the current academic review mechanism, and if this problem can be improved and effectively solved in similar activities in the future, it will be a great gain for me!