[Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Tue Jun 25 16:29:43 PDT 2019
I think there is no point in trying to respond with a
"standard CHAT." The point is to make one criticism which
cuts through.I see no reason why 2 or 3 submissions from
people on this list could not be made.
andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 26/06/2019 6:29 am, Huw Lloyd wrote:
> David,
>
> One of your difficulties, perhaps, is going to be
> presenting an agreed upon or standard CHAT. E.g. I doubt
> it is commonly recognised that the crises implicate
> different ontological bases to "shared" experience, i.e.
> that so called shared experience may actually be
> profoundly different, despite an illusion of identity,
> even assuming an approximately agreed upon intention. If
> you assert principles of AT or LSV, then you are on
> clearer ground. Then there is the role of agency in
> transformations of understanding, which again proponents
> of "dialogically shared experience" have shied away from,
> labelling it "rational" etc.
>
> From the language used for TTOM, there doesn't appear to
> be a categorical difference with respect to "crises vs
> incremental change". In the language used, it seems
> probable that a "step function" is implicated in
> behavioural change.
>
> I think one can quite adequately express that there are
> many ways of learning about the world and making
> inferences about it. Bayesian models might model well
> certain kinds of inferences, but it seem unlikely to be
> universal. This issue pertains to whether claims are being
> made about he structure of knowing or whether one is
> simply making claims about the general shape of the outcomes.
>
> Probably more can be achieved by addressing the
> assumptions about attention and intention. There is no
> hand waving hear in AT or LSV, but rather treating these
> as fundamental mediatory principles which help to
> structure the forms of inference through signs.
>
> No doubt a thorough analysis would be a clarifying
> exercise, and probably help reveal the pedigree of AT/LSV.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 19:36, David H Kirshner
> <dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> wrote:
>
> The forthcoming BBS article presents a theory of
> acquisition of culture based around our capacity for
> “Thinking through Other Minds” (TTOM).
>
> This is not a simplistic Theory of Mind (TOM)
> perspective that attributes strong inferential prowess
> to the individual agent to figure out the
> propositional contents of another’s mind. Rather we
> come to perceive things through the same lens as other
> members of our culture: “The main role of others in
> this kind of social learning is to direct attention
> rather than to convey specific semantic content
> (Tomasello 2014). In effect, social learning involves
> immersion in local contexts through what we call
> regimes of attention and imitation that direct human
> agents to engage differentially in forms of shared
> intentionality. We have argued that such /regimes of
> attention/ play a central role in the enculturation of
> human agents (Ramstead, Veissière, and Kirmayer 2016).
> Indeed, human beings seem particularly specialized for
> such forms of social learning (Sterelny 2012)” (p. 23).
>
> The theory is based on the Variational Free-Energy
> Principle (FEP) which I take to be at odds with
> sociocultural perspectives because its processes are
> incremental, hence without the possibility of crises
> that mark Vygotsky’s viewpoint:
>
> The generative model functions as a point of reference
> in a cyclical (action-perception) process that allows
> the organism to engage in active inference. Internal
> states of the agent (e.g., the states of its brain)
> encode a /recognition/ density; that is, a probability
> distribution or Bayesian belief about the current
> state of affairs and contingencies causing sensory
> input. This (posterior) belief is encoded by neuronal
> activity, synaptic efficacy, and connection strength
> (Friston 2010). The mathematical formulation behind
> the FEP claims that all of these internal brain states
> change in a way to minimise variational free energy.
> By construction, the variational free energy is always
> greater than a quantity known as /surprisal,
> self-information/ or, more simply, /surprise/ in
> information theory. This means that minimising free
> energy minimises /surprise/, which can be quantified
> as the negative logarithm of the probability that ‘a
> creature like me’ would sample ‘these sensations’.
> (pp. 30-31).
>
> This notion of ‘a creature like me’ plays into the
> theory in a central way. Interestingly, though, the
> bias toward our own kind is not a primitive construct
> in this system—we’re born with an emotional bond to
> our kind as a reflection of our dependence. Rather,
> it’s a result of how immersion in our home culture
> plays out in the statistical regularities we
> encounter: “The reliance on social and cultural
> affordances co-constructed with and maintained by
> other people makes it important for us to distinguish
> between those who think like us and those whose
> thinking is either systematically different from our
> own or else unfamiliar and, hence, unpredictable – and
> inherently surprising. This distinction marks off
> domains of in-group and out-group, with corresponding
> epistemic authority. Regimes of attention then make
> the right kinds of social solicitations stand out in
> context, thereby allowing the learning of socially
> relevant affordances in a given cultural niche,
> community or local world. ” (p. 24).
>
> The theory accounts for extension of culture, not just
> reproduction. This extensive quality insinuates itself
> into the theory through an imperative for novelty that
> balances the conservative minimizing of “surprise”
> references above: “The FEP deals with the issue of
> novelty seeking behaviour by formalising action as
> being in the game of maximising the /epistemic value
> of action/ (or epistemic affordance). In essence, free
> energy minimizing agents seek to sample the world in
> the most efficient way possible. Since the information
> gain (i.e., salience) is the amount of uncertainty
> resolved, it makes good sense for the agent to
> selectively sample regions of environment with high
> uncertainty, which will yield the most informative
> observations” (p. 39).
>
> A strength of this theory is that it uses one set of
> constructs to account for ontogenesis as well as for
> broader time scales of cultural change: “The
> exploitation of regimes of attention – encoded in the
> niche – is especially useful to track regularities
> unfolding over longer time scales of the history of a
> community, whose variability would be harder to assess
> over the timescale of an individual’s perceptual and
> procedural learning” (p. 42). This can include even
> “the temporal scale of human cultural co-evolution.
> The 7R variant of the DRD4 gene (which encodes the D4
> subtype of the dopamine receptor) appears to have
> become more widespread 50,000 years ago at a time of
> great migrations and a revolution in hunting
> technology among early Homo Sapiens” (p. 40).
>
> What’s more, the theory is specified to the level of
> representation in computational theory, and a level
> that is empirically testable: We have designed TTOM as
> a guide for the production of /testable models/ in
> related domains. While TTOM per se would be difficult
> to test (due to its generality), one can derive
> specific, integrative models from TTOM to study
> specific forms of socio-cultural dynamics” (p. 60).
>
> A crucial difference between TTOM and sociocultural
> theory is that while TTOM represents culture, it
> doesn’t directly represent social engagement. Crisis
> in Vygotsky’s work is enabled and resolved through
> mutual appropriation as it plays out the level of
> individual engagement in social processes. One might
> object to TTOM (or any other computationally realized
> theory?) on ethical grounds, as dehumanizing. But
> beyond ideology it must be disturbing to XMCAers that
> sociocultural theory perspectives are not figured into
> an extensive theoretical treatment of acquisition of
> culture. BBS’s system of published commentaries
> provides for a possible corrective.
>
> David
>
> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> *On Behalf
> Of *David H Kirshner
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2019 10:02 PM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] RE: Re: FW: BBS Call for
> Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.
>
> I've now read the 17-page introduction which outlines
> the theory, “Thinking through Other Minds” (TTOM).
>
> They describe "/selective patterning of salience and
> attention/ as the main process behind enculturation,
> which in turn enables the engagement of human agents
> with the sets of possible actions (or cultural
> affordances) that make up their local world" (p. 15).
>
> This places their work in a line of research based on
> cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience
> (though it is worth pointing out that the authors are
> not pursuing a cognitivist explanation based on the
> Theory Theory position that we build up explicit
> hypotheses about the declarative content of other's
> minds).
>
> Their approach seems to stress the ways in which new
> members of cultural community come to coordinate their
> perceptual apparatus with normative patterns of the
> community--a kind of seamless absorption of neophytes.
>
> This would seem to be in direct contrast to the focus
> of sociocultural theory on periods of crisis that
> overcome disjunctions between the basic focus and
> orientation of the neophyte to the broader culture.
>
> But I've read far enough to know whether their theory
> accounts for higher mental functions, so it is not
> clear the extent to which sociocultural theory may
> still prove complementary to the approach outlined in
> the article.
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> On Behalf Of
> PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:09 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary
> Proposals: Veissière et al.
>
> Thanks, Alfredo.
>
> I remain at the disposal of who would like to work on it.
>
> Anne-Nelly
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
>
> De : <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of
> Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> Répondre à : "eXtended
> Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>> Date : jeudi, 20
> juin 2019 à 14:55 À : "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>> Objet : [Xmca-l] Re:
> FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.
>
> >Certainly, Anne-Nelly, the work you just shared would be
> relevant for
>
> >that commentary, Alfredo
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >________________________________________
>
> >From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>
> >on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly
>
> ><Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch
> <mailto:Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch>>
>
> >Sent: 20 June 2019 11:53
>
> >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>
> >Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals:
> Veissière
>
> >et al.
>
> >
>
> >It would be great to have someone from XMCA who would
> comment and
>
> >enrich this debate (on these days I am not available to do it).
>
> >The underlying model in this upcoming article seems to
> rely mostly on
>
> >conformity, monological approaches, etc. In the paper (attached
> here)
>
> >we offer a completely different approach, much more
> inspired by
>
> >dialogism, cultural historical theory, and a serious account of the
>
> >activity that the child indulges in when answering.
>
> >Hoping to read you on these issues.
>
> >
>
> >Anne-Nelly
>
> >
>
> >Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
>
> >Institut de psychologie et éducation
>
> >Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines Université de Neuchâtel
>
> >Espace Tilo-Frey 1 CH 2000 Neuchâtel (Switzerland)
>
> >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un
> <http://www.un>
>
> >ine.ch
> <http://ine.ch>%2Fipe%2Fpublications%2Fanne_nelly_perret_clermont&data=02%7C
>
> >01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu
> <http://40lsu.edu>%7C0ea4e20deb904bde665e08d6f580c318%7C2d4dad3f50ae
>
> >47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636966330710069506&sdata=czF8vgXexZh
>
> >bw0fpJ0A2ZRA%2FpVO5vYyZQXR1AiqeefY%3D&reserved=0
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >-----Message d'origine-----
>
> >De : <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of
> David H Kirshner
>
> ><dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> Répondre à :
> "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>
> ><xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>> Date : jeudi, 20
> juin 2019 à 11:35 À :
>
> >"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>> Objet :
>
> >[Xmca-l] FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.
>
> >
>
> >>I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which
> takes as its
>
> >>primary problem, acquisition of culture.
>
> >>BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are
> reviewed and
>
> >>then published along with it.
>
> >>As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or
> cultural historical
>
> >>theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want
> to submit
>
> >>a commentary.
>
> >>David
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>-----Original Message-----
>
> >>From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com
> <mailto:em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com>
>
> >><em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com
> <mailto:em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com>>
> On Behalf Of
>
> >>Behavioral and Brain Sciences
>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM
>
> >>To: David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>>
>
> >>Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.
>
> >>
>
> >>Dear Dr. Kirshner:
>
> >>
>
> >>We are writing you to announce that BBS has just
> accepted an article
>
> >>for open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already
> reviewed, and
>
> >>we are now accepting commentary proposals. If you are
> interested in
>
> >>writing a commentary, you are welcome to submit a short
> proposal (see
>
> >>instructions below). No action is required if you aren't interested.
>
> >>
>
> >>Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you
> are formally
>
> >>invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all
>
> >>commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also,
> please be
>
> >>aware that we typically receive far more commentary
> proposals than we
>
> >>can accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing
> invitations, we
>
> >>balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the
>
> >>commentary itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the
>
> >>commentator's work has been discussed in the target article, and
> other considerations.
>
> >>
>
> >>NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON:
>
> >>
>
> >>Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational
> Approach
>
> >>to Cognition and Culture
>
> >>
>
> >>Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissière, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D.
>
> >>Ramstead, Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer
>
> >>
>
> >>Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019
>
> >>
>
> >>Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture
> remain
>
> >>unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations
> learned and
>
> >>maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale
>
> >>sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms
>
> >>involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared
>
> >>expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour',
>
> >>'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit
> learning'
>
> >>are the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of
> cognition
>
> >>and the acquisition of culture; however, their
> interactions require
>
> >>greater specification and clarification. In this paper, we
> integrate
>
> >>these candidates using the variational (free energy)
> approach to human
>
> >>cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the
>
> >>construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic
>
> >>resources called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents
>
> >>learn the shared habits, norms, and expectations of their
> culture
>
> >>through immersive participation in patterned cultural
> practices that
>
> >>selectively pattern attention and behaviour. We call this process
>
> >>"Thinking through Other Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process
> of inferring other agents'
>
> >>expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We
>
> >>argue that for humans, information from and about other
> people's
>
> >>expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical
>
> >>regularities that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour.
>
> >>The integrative model we offer has implications that can
> advance
>
> >>theories of cognition, enculturation, adaptation, and
> psychopathology.
>
> >>Crucially, this formal
>
> >>(variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current
>
> >>cognitive science, such as the distinction between internalist and
>
> >>externalist accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more
>
> >>fundamental distinction between dynamical and representational
> accounts of enactivism.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy
> principle;
>
> >>Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural
> affordances; Niche
>
> >>construction; Embodiment; Enactment
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>Download Target Article Preprint:
>
> >>
>
> >>(Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate
>
> >>window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download
> directly
>
> >>to your computer.)
>
> >>
>
> >>https://www.cam
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cam&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Cc25a54f4980f464f762908d6f5f52f4f%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C636966830755787633&sdata=I%2FBaRWbIoUVThuZ2JK8beHj%2FFz%2FAjqoTFJ3pl6aCn%2BM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> >>b
>
> >>ridge.org
> <http://ridge.org>%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A
>
> >>103
>
> >>9
>
> >>9BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through
>
> >>_ot
>
> >>h
>
> >>er_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&data=
>
> >>02%
>
> >>7
>
> >>C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu
> <http://40lsu.edu>%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50
>
> >>ae4
>
> >>7
>
> >>d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8
>
> >>ZFC
>
> >>C
>
> >>ROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&reserved=0
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING
>
> >>
>
> >>1. Name of the target article for which you are
> submitting a
>
> >>commentary proposal.
>
> >>
>
> >>2. All authors, including any possible co-authors,
> listed at the top
>
> >>of your submission document.
>
> >>
>
> >>3. What aspect of the target article or book you would
> anticipate
>
> >>commenting on.
>
> >>
>
> >>4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the
> target
>
> >>article or book.
>
> >>
>
> >>Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4.
>
> >>
>
> >>EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL
>
> >>
>
> >>In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals,"
> we invite
>
> >>commentators who do not submit proposals‹these include reviewers of
>
> >>the paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper,
> and
>
> >>commentators suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be
>
> >>overlapping sets.) Once we subtract this set, only about 20
> submitted
>
> >>proposals from the Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited
> to write a commentary.
>
> >>
>
> >>Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be
>
> >>balanced to a degree across the various fields of cognitive
> science,
>
> >>point of view of the article, and several other aspects of
> academic
>
> >>diversity. The number of proposals can vary widely, however,
> depending
>
> >>on the topic, the range is from 15 to 150! In the latter
> case, when we
>
> >>can accept only a little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a
> few things
>
> >>will facilitate a positive reading of a proposal, and
> hopefully
>
> >>acceptance, given the
>
> >>constraints:
>
> >>
>
> >>1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer
> than the
>
> >>commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value
> succinctness.
>
> >>On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of
> the target
>
> >>article" is not enough. Are you for it, against it, or
> extending it?
>
> >>
>
> >>2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write
> a commentary
>
> >>and submit it to us.
>
> >>
>
> >>3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the
> target article
>
> >>they intend to comment on. It's quite obvious when
> proposers are
>
> >>using the commentary forum only to promote their own
> research and not
>
> >>engage with the target article. Such proposals are routinely
> declined.
>
> >>
>
> >>4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to
> bear": While
>
> >>the editors have a generally good idea of who is active
> in the fields
>
> >>of the target article, we must cover a wide range and
> may be unaware
>
> >>of the people who have been most productive and
> influential in a given
>
> >>area, or the scholars who have engaged in heated debate
> with the
>
> >>authors in the past. So, the editors will be greatly helped
> if every
>
> >>proposer states their position in the field and lists between
> 2-10
>
> >>relevant publications, again succinctly. On the other side of the
>
> >>spectrum, under no circumstances should an entire CV be included.
>
> >>
>
> >>5. BUT Š it's not all about articles previously
> published, or position
>
> >>in the field. It's not necessary to have published in
> the area, and
>
> >>it's not necessary to have a current academic
> appointment. We make
>
> >>efforts to include proposals coming both from established
> figures and
>
> >>total newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an
>
> >>illuminating application of the target article concept to an allied
>
> >>field, or a truly clever riposte is often all that's needed.
>
> >>
>
> >>6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to
> one target
>
> >>article will almost certainly remove one set of your
> co-authors or the
>
> >>other from contention altogether, which will put you in an
> unpleasant
>
> >>game theoretic situation with your colleagues. Do this
> carefully, if at all.
>
> >>
>
> >>7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we
> do want to
>
> >>open up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've
> written one
>
> >>or more other commentaries recently, your odds of having
> another one
>
> >>accepted will correspondingly go down, though not to zero.
>
> >>
>
> >>HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE
> SUBMISSION SYSTEM
>
> >>
>
> >>If you would like to nominate yourself for potential
> commentary
>
> >>invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS
>
> >>Editorial Manager site:
>
> >>
>
> >>1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an
> author:
>
> >>
>
> >>http://www.edit
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edit&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Cc25a54f4980f464f762908d6f5f52f4f%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C636966830755787633&sdata=idBqs2Jwfjq3y4ddNVlFNIi31Dyysr5fasZAlYaj84s%3D&reserved=0>
>
> >>o
>
> >>rialmanager.com
> <http://rialmanager.com>%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu
> <http://40lsu.edu>%7Ce1f5a84b1b
>
> >>104
>
> >>c
>
> >>1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964
>
> >>370
>
> >>9
>
> >>95241675&sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&am
>
> >>p;r
>
> >>e
>
> >>served=0
>
> >>
>
> >>Username: DKirshner-489
>
> >>Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have
>
> >>forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details.
>
> >>
>
> >>If you do not have an account, please visit the site and
> register.
>
> >>
>
> >>2. Submit New Manuscript
>
> >>
>
> >>Within your author main menu please select Submit New
> Manuscript.
>
> >>
>
> >>3. Select Article Type
>
> >>
>
> >>Choose the article type of your manuscript from the
> pull-down menu.
>
> >>Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each
>
> >>accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary
> proposal
>
> >>article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example:
>
> >>"Commentary Proposal (Veissière)"
>
> >>
>
> >>4. Enter Title
>
> >>
>
> >>Please title your proposal submission by indicating the
> relevant first
>
> >>author name of the target article or book. For example:
> "Commentary
>
> >>Proposal on Veissière"
>
> >>
>
> >>5. Add Co-Authors
>
> >>
>
> >>If you are proposing to write a commentary with any
> co-authors, the
>
> >>system will not allow you to enter their information here.
> Instead,
>
> >>include their names at the top of the commentary proposal
> document you
>
> >>upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the
>
> >>commentary proposal itself.
>
> >>
>
> >>6. Attach Files
>
> >>
>
> >>The only required submission Item is your commentary
> proposal in
>
> >>.DOC(X) or .RTF format. In the description field please add
> the first
>
> >>author name of the target article or book. For example:
> "Commentary
>
> >>Proposal on Veissière"
>
> >>
>
> >>7. Approve Your Submission
>
> >>
>
> >>Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal
> submission and
>
> >>will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions
> Waiting for
>
> >>Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or
>
> >>remove the submission. (You might have to wait several
> minutes for the
>
> >>blue "Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.)
> Once you have
>
> >>Approved the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial
> office.
>
> >>
>
> >>**It is VERY important that you check and approve your
> commentary
>
> >>proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot
> process
>
> >>your
>
> >>submission.**
>
> >>
>
> >>8. Editorial Office Decision
>
> >>
>
> >>At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the
> editors will
>
> >>review all the submitted commentary proposals. An
> undetermined number
>
> >>of commentary proposals will be approved and those
> author names will
>
> >>be added to the final commentary invitation list. At
> that time you
>
> >>will be notified of the decision. If you are formally
> invited to
>
> >>submit a commentary, you will be asked to confirm your
> intention to
>
> >>submit by the commentary deadline.
>
> >>
>
> >>Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the
> copy-edited and
>
> >>revised target article will be posted for invitees.
>
> >>
>
> >>Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an
> official
>
> >>invitation!
>
> >>
>
> >>BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST
>
> >>
>
> >>If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary
> proposals in the
>
> >>future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org
> <mailto:bbsjournal@cambridge.org>, and type "remove" in
>
> >>the subject line.
>
> >>
>
> >>SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES
>
> >>
>
> >>To suggest others as possible commentators, or to
> nominate others for
>
> >>BBS Associateship status, please email
> bbsjournal@cambridge.org
> <mailto:bbsjournal@cambridge.org>.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>Regards,
>
> >>
>
> >>Gennifer Levey
>
> >>Managing Editor, BBS
>
> >>Cambridge University Press
>
> >>bbsjournal@cambridge.org <mailto:bbsjournal@cambridge.org>
>
> >>http://journals
>
> >>.
>
> >>cambridge.org
> <http://cambridge.org>%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu
> <http://40lsu.edu>%7Ce1f5a84b1b10
>
> >>4c1
>
> >>c
>
> >>ea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C63696437
>
> >>099
>
> >>5
>
> >>241675&sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&am
>
> >>p;r
>
> >>e
>
> >>served=0
>
> >>http://bbs.edmg
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbbs.edmg&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Cc25a54f4980f464f762908d6f5f52f4f%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C636966830755797620&sdata=qcJC2wFZAYk0waiF87HycUQ4dya2iC4mIp8cAFvrSV8%3D&reserved=0>
>
> >>r
>
> >>.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu <http://40lsu.edu>%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6
>
> >>f3b
>
> >>8
>
> >>7aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&a
>
> >>mp;
>
> >>s
>
> >>data=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&reserv
>
> >>ed=
>
> >>0
>
> >>
>
> >>__________________________________________________
>
> >>In compliance with data protection regulations, you may
> request that
>
> >>we remove your personal registration details at any
> time. (Use the
>
> >>following URL:
>
> >>https://www.edi
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.edi&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Cc25a54f4980f464f762908d6f5f52f4f%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C636966830755797620&sdata=rq1WN74ZH3zHqmu7bceXiN3dYJ%2BlWyAlTNbpH9VxNzM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> >>t
>
> >>orialmanager.com
> <http://orialmanager.com>%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%4
>
> >>0ls
>
> >>u
>
> >>.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f4
>
> >>66f
>
> >>8
>
> >>%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULa
>
> >>maL
>
> >>G
>
> >>c40foi86umQ%3D&reserved=0). Please contact the publication office
>
> >>if you have any questions.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190626/810b9cdc/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list