GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-01 > 0948933224


From: Rafal Prinke <>
Subject: Re: Ratings issues--and TAG
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 01:33:44 +0100


David Greene <> wrote:

> May I respond to Rafal Prinke's comment that an article published in TAG
> on Polish families would not necessarily mean that a consensus had been
> reached even if it brought forth no response from TAG's readers?

I did not intend to question the quality of TAG in any sense but just
continued using the example of Stewart Baldwin.

> TAG publishes medieval articles fairly frequently if (1) they are
> ancestral to an colonial American family or (2) deal with a major crux
> in medieval genealogy. TAG's editors are not experts in Polish research,
> nor do we have many Polish readers. TAG, however, is a refereed journal;
> at least three of our close colleagues--two of whom are FASGs--are
> experts in Polish and Slavic research, and we would submit Polish
> articles to them for their evaluation.

I did not mean to say a poor article would have entered TAG. The point
was only how consensus is reached - I questioned Stewart's statement
that no objections to an article represent a consensus by indicating that
the journal may not reach all competent researchers. The highest quality
of the article itself was assumed by both of us. Peer reviews guarantee
the quality but they certainly do not prevent differences in opinion
and thus lack of consensus. To quote the problematic paragraph from
my message:

>>I can imagine an article on a Polish medieval family which would
>>pass unchallenged in an American journal but would cause considerable
>>discussion when published in a Polish journal. This is because TAG presumably
>>does not reach Polish scholarly circles (because of the language barrier
>>and physical reality - I doubt if there are any subscribers in Poland).

Please, note my use of "I can imagine" and "an American journal" :-)

Perhaps I should have used a different example. There was a discussion
about Margaret, dau of Bela III of Hungary here recently, so say
there is an article about her in a Hungarian scholarly top quality journal.
Its circulation is limited for obvious reasons and thus hardly any
objections can be expected from non-Hungarian competent researchers.

The whole point that I was so inaptly trying to make has now been
expressed by Christian Settipani with superb brevity and precision:

>>We have to distinguish consensus for the method and the consensus
>>for the result. I don’t think that the later is really significant,
>>while the former is indispensable.

A journal like TAG guarantees the former - and this is where it differs
from such journals as... no, I will not name any :-) But it does not
(and cannot) guarantee the latter.

Best regards,

Rafal

This thread: