Maybe I’m just having a bad week, but I’m starting to find that the journals that I regularly browse (that is, the journals for which I subscribe to an RSS feed or an email table of contents service) are not as interesting to me as they once were. Which is being generous. To channel Lemony Snicket for a moment, “not as interesting to me as they once were” is a phrase which here means, “boring me to tears.” Y suggests that I need to subscribe to new journals’ RSS feeds. Unfortunately, being up on the latest work in Science Fiction Studies isn’t going to do me much good in the classroom. So here, dear reader, is my review of the latest table of contents of a journal that I browse regularly. And no, I won’t tell you what the journal is.

  1. Moderately interesting, though only in a, dare I say it, academic sense.
  2. Read it a thousand times already.
  3. Probably a spinoff article from the author’s dissertation.
  4. Academics navel-gazing.
  5. Yes, we know that database is flawed. If the vendor gave a damn, don’t you think they would have fixed it by now? Get over it.
  6. Wow, people behave online the same way they do offline? Say it ain’t so, Joe.
  7. Yet another user community discovers the latest shiny object.
  8. Shiny object! Let’s find an excuse to use it!
  9. Yes, we know that Impact Factor sucks.
  10. Read it a thousand times already.
  11. Should have been written at least 5 years ago.
  12. The medium is the message? Really? You think?
  13. What is this paper doing in this journal?
  14. Death by jargon.