Search Here ….

Tags

affect AI AI slop AI STORIES alumni art autocorrect Blogging book ChatGPT conferences data analysis digital art electronic literature ELMCIP environmental art exhibition flies Gephi history journalister LLMs London machine vision market literature motherhood network analysis norsk open access Pierre Huyghe publication publications research science fiction self-representation selfies social media Surveillance talks teaching tracking trip report twitter UiB visualisation
Uncategorised

write a paper for JoDI

JillPost a Comment

I’m acting editor for the Hypertext Criticism theme of JoDI, the Journal for Digital Information. I’ve been co-editing the theme along with Susana Tosca for a couple of years now, but this year’s Susana’s on maternity leave and has left it all to me. Since we haven’t had a specific call for papers for the theme for a while now there haven’t been many submissions, but having just sent out reviews to an author I was pleased with the system: peer review may have failings, but really, it’s pretty damn good having a system where anyone can send a paper in to a journal and have 2-4 scholars in the field provide feedback. Certainly the quality of reviewers reports varies, but when I send papers to reviewers for JoDI almost all of them respond promptly and with useful, thoughful comments to the authors.

One of the nice things about JoDI is that it tries to publish papers fast. If you submit a paper, we try to let you know within two weeks whether its accepted, rejected, accepted with revisions or recommended for resubmission after revision. I’ve got to admit that two weeks is a pretty tight deadline, and realistically 3-4 weeks is more likely, given that reviewers are busy. If the paper’s accepted it can be published immediately (or after requested revisions) and then when about five or six papers have been published, an issue is announced. I like that. It’s kind of like blogging – you don’t have to save it up for print when you’re working on the web.

The hypertext criticism theme started off being literary approaches to hypertext theory and to hypertext fiction, and we particularly wanted to find close readings of hypertexts. I still want more of them, but now I’m also thinking that reading blogs as literature or hypertext could be really interesting as well. And of course JoDI has other themes as well.

So anyway: I’d love more submissions. Susana and I were too busy to rustle up a new special issue on hypertext criticism, but we don’t need a special issue to publish papers on hypertext criticism. You can write it as a traditional paper, or using links, video or anything else that’ll work in a standard webbrowser. I can’t promise we’ll publish it, but I’ll definitely get you feedback from experts in the field! Oh, and yes, JoDI is on all those lists of peer-reviewed journals your university will give you credit for, even here in Norway.

Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI and algorithmic culture University politics

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.