Someone recently introduced me to Gnovis, a peer-reviewed journal (how frustrating that in electronic publishing, we still have to insist that loud'n'clear) of Communication, Culture and Technology. I like it a lot so far. For you game researchers, I thought I'd pass along Peter Bell's article on the first-person shooter. Abstract:
As video games and the genre of the first-person shooter have become increasingly detailed and “immersive,” manufacturers, gamers and critics have often remarked on the realistic experience these games afford players. In November 2002, editors of the satirical publication The Onion mined the phenomenon in their typical nothing-is-sacred manner, conjuring an article about the delayed release of an “ultra-realistic” first-person shooter called Beltway Sniper: Silent Strike. Such an emphasis on realism and gamer subjectivity coming from so many sources calls for an exploration of how realism is created and understood in these games. As this paper will argue, the impression of realism and interactivity in such first-person shooter (FPS) as id Software's DOOM and Quake II is not due to the advancement of technologies towards a paragon of interactive reality but from the technological differentiation of games in production, a differentiation that is naturalized as realistic and interactive.
CCT sounds like a great program
The CCT sounds like a great program at Georgetown; both the design and the abstracts look wonderful (though I confess that, since I'm writing this from home, I haven't tried to download any of the PDFs over my slow modem).
I do note that it seems very much geared towards serving the needs of and showcasing the membership of one particular MA program at one particular school... from the "about" page: "Professors may nominate students' works that in order to recognize their academic achievement, intellectual rigor, and innovative transdisciplinary approach to scholarship."
There are peers, and then there are peers. While the graduate students who peer-review this journal may themselves be experts in cutting-edge fields that have not attracted the interest of senior scholars, I wonder whether promoting this particular publication an example of peer-review may backfire.
Just to clarify -- I'm not trying to downplay the value of this particular content, or the principle of a student-run publication; wasn't Kairos started by Ph.D. students? -- rather, the specific Georgetown focus, the bios of the peer-reviewers, and the mission statement all suggest that Gnosis does not aspire to the kind of authority that most faculty hiring and promotions committees are likely to be impressed by...
Potential employers and Ph.D. admissions officers, on the other hand, will likely do backflips over it. But if you're not a Georgetown CCT student, you should probably find another venue for your latest mansucript.
Dennis G. Jerz
Jerz's Literacy Weblog
Peer Review
I see your point, Dennis. I wonder why they limited this to students instead of opening up to a broad writer-base? If they want to get students involved, have them help run/administer the journal. Grad students, as far as I know, are generally allowed to submit articles to peer-reviewed journals.