Recently, a reader’s report was returned to me with a comment suggesting that the submitted manuscript might be “too theoretical” for publication in Composition Forum.  This comment prompted me, as Managing Editor, to reflect on the role of theory in the featured articles in our journal.

Of course, such a reflection begs the question of what theory is, and I suspect you’ll forgive as much, so as to avoid another extended etymological investigation of the Greek theoria and praxis.  Composition Forum, as its subtitle announces, is a “journal of pedagogical theory in rhetoric and composition,” and thus aims to publish work that theorizes practice in sophisticated and provocative ways, or to put it another way that practices theory in sophisticated and provocative ways.  So that’s the easy answer to the query that launched this discussion.

The more difficult question is:  what amount of theory in a manuscript would be “too much,”  what would be “too little,” and what would be “just right.”  Trust me, the “too little” scenario is the easiest to recognize and to describe.  This is the kind of submission that amounts to little more than detailed lesson plans or assignments, or “research” bereft of any methodological articulation nor any speculative discussion regarding results, or an essay that reveals a surprising unfamiliarity with the current issues or debates within the field of rhetoric and composition.  But what might be “too much” theory?  I suppose the easy answer would be the case of a submitted essay that had no conversation with or implications for the teaching of writing.   Note, however, that I did not specify that the theory had to have a pedagogical application or that it had to be translated into praxis.  On the contrary, I can imagine many a worthy investigation into how a theory could not be appropriated by classroom practices or how a theory would be at conflict with writing pedagogy or how a theory could not explain the results of a classroom study of student writers.  So what amount of theory would be “just right”?  Although not reducible to a golden mean, the “just right” essay would contribute to the ongoing conversation of our field by responding to the published scholarship in complex ways that would construct provocative ways of knowing, thinking, and doing in rhetoric and composition studies.

To this end, we invite submissions that investigate composition theory and its relation to the teaching of writing at the post-secondary level.  We welcome essays that examine specific pedagogical theories or that explore how theory informs (or should inform) writing instruction, writing practices, and research into the complex literacies of our time.

Please visit our Submissions page, and send us your manuscripts or queries.  We look forward to publishing your “just right” essay.

With best regards,

Michelle Ballif

Managing Editor

Note:  All articles published in Composition Forum are subject to rigorous peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the topical area.

We typically commission reviews, an increasingly common practice at academic journals in rhetoric and composition. We strive to make the review process as fair and objective as possible, and we discourage reviews of texts written by colleagues in one’s own academic department, reviews of works by former mentors or students, or reviews of books in which one has participated in the editorial process (as a manuscript reviewer, for example, or as a member of an editorial board). In fairness to book authors, we need to establish that a reviewer has the credentials to review the text in question. While graduate students certainly can possess this expertise, reviews written as a seminar assignment may not reflect sufficient understanding of the review genre or the field.

A successful review does both. It shows a balance of summary and analysis, depth of critical assessment, and willingness to assert an opinion. A successful review also conveys an informed opinion, situating the text in question in relation to recent scholarship and larger trends in composition studies.

Our work requires a robust community of prospective reviewers with a range of expertise. With that in mind, we invite you to join our pool of reviewers by emailing your curriculum vitae to reviews@compositionforum.com. Please include a brief statement of your scholarly interests in the body of your message. We also welcome comments and suggestions.

Volume 22 features an interview with Susan Jarratt and articles focusing on pedagogical theory in composition. This volume also includes two program profiles describing writing programs at Southern Illinois University Carbondale and at Oakland University.

Along with the interview, articles, and program profiles, CF 22 offers five reviews of new texts of interest to writing scholars and teachers.

Thanks for visiting the journal! We welcome your suggestions and comments about this volume.

We would love to hear about your scholarly work and to tell you a bit about Composition Forum‘s features and future plans. Look for CF Editor Christian Weisser at the Editors’ Roundtable.

This volume features an interview with Cindy Selfe, and articles focusing on web literacy and on sustainability in composition. CF 21 also includes two Program Profiles describing writing programs at SUNY Binghamton and the University of Minnesota Duluth. In addition, Volume 21 contains three book reviews and a review essay that examines recent books on activist rhetorics.

We thank you for visiting the journal, and we welcome your suggestions and comments about this volume.

Contemporary difficulties in scholarly publishing are well documented. The costs of subscriptions to academic journals are rising while library budgets are falling. University presses are coming under terrific financial pressure, and many are cutting way back on their offerings or simply closing. Students are feeling the crunch as textbook costs soar. Open access publishing seeks to address these financial pressures by eliminating the licensing fees customarily charged for reprinting academic works. But money is only part of the issue. The broader argument is simpler: why should the redistribution of scholarship be unnecessarily restricted?

Composition Forum editors share this belief. We want to see the widest possible audience for scholarship published in our journal. The first part of that model is publishing on the web, using techniques which ensure CF is easy to find and access. The second is ensuring that authors and readers know that articles published in CF come with very few restrictions on redistribution. That’s where Creative Commons (CC) comes in. Using their model, we’ve added explicit permission to reuse to every article published in the journal. Broad support for Creative Commons, including endorsements by scholars in composition studies, as well as the fantastic educational materials they provide, make it a great choice for us.

We selected the Attribution-Share Alike license (commonly abbreviated CC-BY-SA) because it provides the best balance of restrictions and freedom for writers and readers. The “attribution“ component means that articles published in Composition Forum can be cited, quoted, reprinted, and otherwise redistributed, in whole or in part, as long as the authors are attributed. The “share alike” proviso echoes similar language in licenses used for free or open source software. It allows the creation and distribution of derivative works (we thought of course packs, but other forms are possible) as long as those derivative works use the same CC-BY-SA license, or one which similarly allows free use of works, given attribution. This condition prevents restrictions from being added to content published in Composition Forum if it is republished in another form.

This explicit permission to reuse and redistribute has several strong benefits:

• Contributors to CF retain their copyrights. They know, up front, they will be able to reproduce or republish their own work in the future.
• Teachers who find CF publications useful can reproduce them for courses immediately, electronically or in hard copy, as long as they maintain the attribution.
• Inclusion of articles in course packs doesn’t require the hassle of obtaining permissions—or the license fees.
• Electronic databases such as Google Scholar can index and provide content published in CF without restriction.

I have been asked why we didn’t add the “non-commercial” provision, which prevents copying and remixing by commercial entities. Again, we wanted the largest possible audience for the journal. Restricting commercial use could raise barriers for students and faculty at for-profit colleges. To put it another way, adjuncts teaching at the University of Phoenix and similar institutions don’t need their jobs made any more difficult. Students taking courses at those institutions need access to the high-quality peer-reviewed scholarship that we publish in Composition Forum just as much as those at traditional not-for-profit schools. Similar reasoning applies to the use of articles published in CF in course packs: is it commercial use if a local print shop puts together a course pack on behalf of an instructor? In both cases, not excluding commercial use ensures the most access to the work of our contributors.

If you’re thinking about submitting an article to Composition Forum and have questions about the CC-BY-SA license, we’d love to hear them. Leave a comment below or write to editors@compositionforum.com.

This volume features an interview with Gary Olson and three articles focusing on different dimensions of the academic work of writing specialists. CF 20 also includes two Program Profiles describing the first year writing programs at California State University, Fresno and Eastern Michigan University. In addition, Volume 20 contains reviews of three new books in rhetoric and composition.

Thanks for visiting the journal, and we welcome your suggestions and comments about this volume.

As co-editors of the Program Profiles section of the journal, we invite you to submit profiles of your FYC, WAC, undergraduate, or graduate programs in Rhetoric and Composition. Profiles are generally 2,000 to 4,000 words and should include a general description of the program, the theory informing the program, a structural description of the program, institutional constraints, and a section that explains what you’ve learned from your directorship of the program or what you might do differently based on your experience.

To send queries or manuscripts, please contact our Program Profile Editors, Mary Jo Reiff and Anis Bawarshi.

Please submit email indicating position, institutional affiliation, and reason for interest to Christian Weisser.