Contribute to [in]Transition
[in]Transition: Call for submissions
We invite the submission to our journal of original videographic work created using film, or other moving image, excerpts. The work, which can be of any length, should produce new knowledge about its subject, or about film and moving image studies, through its audiovisual form.
The work should not be under consideration for academic peer-reviewed publication elsewhere. Works do not need to be exclusive – that is, videographic works that have circulated elsewhere (such as on video sharing sites) can be considered for publication in [in]Transition, but they should not have already been included in an academic publication. Similarly, works by producers who are non-academics are welcome as well, but these will be evaluated according to the same standards of creativity and scholarship as those by academics. You can review the [in]Transition copyright and fair use policy here.
Submission and Open Peer Review Process:
Contributors should upload their video to Vimeo, preferably to a password protected page, or to Critical Commons, then email the [in]Transition editors the relevant URL and password, plus a 25-50 word abstract, a 150-word bio, and a 300-1000-word supporting statement that articulates the research aims and process of the work as well as the ways in which those aims are achieved in the audiovisual form. Should your work be accepted for publication you will eventually need to make your video public in the privacy settings in order to allow us to embed it at the journal, alongside your statement. There are no submission or processing charges - [in]Transition is free to publish, free to read.
Within two weeks (normally), the [in]Transition editors will watch the work, confer on it, and either: agree, in the first instance, to send the work out for peer review to two expert reviewers (including members of [in]Transition’s editorial board); or write to the author to explain why, in our view, the work does not yet merit being sent out for external review. One [in]Transition editor will agree to take on the role of liaising with the author and reviewers for each submission.
Peer reviewers will know the name of the person(s) submitting the work and, at the outset of the review process, will be asked to declare any conflict of interest. If there is a conflict, a new reviewer will be sought. Once a reviewer agrees to evaluate the work (comprising video and research statement) they will be asked to make a written recommendation (approximately 300-500-words) to the editors about publication, normally within one month of being sent the work, with three conclusive options: “publish as is”, “make minor amendments”, or “reject”. In the case of the latter recommendation, basic suggestions for major revisions should be made, where appropriate, and resubmission of the work may be encouraged.
Following the reviewers and editors’ approval of the work for publication (with or without further amendments, on which video authors will work on in discussion with one assigned [in]Transition editor, normally within the space of a month), submitted videos will be published alongside the original or amended research statement, as well as edited versions of the peer-reviews (signed by their authors). Further comments from readers/viewers will be encouraged.
In all these ways, as the editors of the online practice research journal Screenworks have argued of that publication’s innovative review process (which has informed our own), we are employing an active, dialogic model of criteria generation and research within our “community of screen media scholar practitioners as to how our research is constituted, defined and disseminated.”
Authors retain the rights to their videos and creator statements, granting [in]Transition the right to publish their work. While we allow creators to determine their own copyright stipulations based on their country of residence, we encourage creators to license their work under CreativeCommons.
We look forward to receiving your submissions.
The maximum timescale for the review process is intended to be four months from submission.
Catherine Grant, Chiara Grizzaffi, Christian Keathley and Drew Morton