Regardless, I still think that we should try to introduce the project with a more contemporary focus and then expand when editors propose compelling projects. At this point, I just want to see people interested in what we’re trying to do…

I’m not against MC publishing work on a historical series like Twilight Zone, but I’d say that would be best suited for a different series/project. Given that what we’re doing is already a bit unusual, keeping the project focused on a specific type of object seems strategically useful for creating a “brand image.”

As to the last question, the first gatekeeping round is really just designed to make sure that whatever is submitted fits the scope of the project - that if the Casefile is about CSI, the submission is actually about the show and qualifies as a scholarly work. I don’t imagine editors will be judging “quality” as much as appropriateness to the venue, weeding out works that are off-topic or clearly not in the scholarly tradition. In the age of spam, I don’t feel comfortable saying that any submission will be posted to the site, as I feel it could really make us look bad if the site gets filled with inappropriate works.

I’m curious what others think about these & other issues. Thanks!

Each Casefile will explore a popular culture series within or across any medium,
whether still ongoing or recently ended, serving as a “serialized anthology” that will build a body of scholarship appropriate to the series form itself. [. . .] We invite proposed Casefiles to cover any contemporary medium or cross-media franchise featuring series format.

I don’t understand why it has to be contemporary. I agree that one advantage to the Casefiles model (as with electronic publishing in general) is that scholarship on current media can be published quickly, but I’d rather not limit it to recent or contemporary media. If someone wanted to do a Casefile about, for example, The Twilight Zone, I think that should be welcomed as long as the editor(s) have a good argument for what contribution their Casefile would make. I say we shouldn’t limit it to current/recent series.

As far as the concept is concerned, I think it’s a leap forward. When my colleagues and I edited Into the Blogosphere (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere), for years we got emails saying, “Wow, that was great. When are you publishing another one? I have something I want to submit…” (The answer? NEVER — it was a one-time collection of essays.) I like the hybridity of the Casefiles; they’re more open-ended than an online or print edited collection, but we’re not making the commitment to publish a new issue every few months, like a journal.

Oh yeah, one request for clarification on the review process:

All submissions will be reviewed by that Casefile’s editor(s) and a project
co-editor; this first review process will strive to be inclusive of a wide range
of scholarship, considering a variety of theoretical approaches, methodologies,
and modes of presentation. The basic goal of any contribution should be to
present an academic argument around the Casefile’s topic; if the Casefile
editors feel that a piece succeeds in offering an interesting argument, they
will post the piece to the In-Process section of the Casefile.

So the first pass at the proposal will be done over email, seen only by the editor and co-editor? I’d like more specificity here. It seems more in keeping with our review model to have authors submit a brief proposal to the MediaCommons site. Then, after the first pass, the editors of the Casefile could recategorize the entry (or a revised version based on the first set of comments) as “In-Process” and make a note on the initial proposal, with a link to the In-Process version, so that users can click through and track the progress of the project.

Finally, I would like to think further about metaphors. Casefile is a good working, for-now metaphor for what we want to do, but I’d like us to brainstorm and think of some others.