Dear Dr. Qwerty: We wrote to you a few weeks ago to announce that BBS had accepted an article by Dixon et al. for general, open peer commentary in BBS. We are writing once more to announce that, if you want to submit a commentary proposal but did not, we're accepting more commentary proposals----until Monday February 13th. 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 are not 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 around the end of February. 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: "Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?" Authors: John Dixon, Mark Levine, Steve Reicher, and Kevin Durrheim Deadline for Commentary Proposals: February 13, 2012 Abstract: For most of the history of prejudice research, negativity has been treated as its emotional and cognitive signature, a conception that continues to dominate work on the topic. By this definition, prejudice occurs when we dislike or derogate members of other groups. Recent research, however, has highlighted the need for a more nuanced and 'inclusive' (Eagly 2004) perspective on the role of intergroup emotions and beliefs in sustaining discrimination. On the one hand, several independent lines of research have shown that unequal intergroup relations are often marked by attitudinal complexity, with positive responses such as affection and admiration mingling with negative responses such as contempt and resentment. Simple antipathy is the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that nurturing bonds of affection between the advantaged and the disadvantaged sometimes entrenches rather than disrupts wider patterns of discrimination. Notably, prejudice reduction interventions may have ironic effects on the political attitudes of the historically disadvantaged, decreasing their perceptions of injustice and willingness to engage in collective action to transform social inequalities. These developments raise a number of important questions. Has the time come to challenge the assumption that negative evaluations are inevitably the cognitive and affective hallmarks of discrimination? Is the orthodox concept of prejudice in danger of side-tracking, if not obstructing, progress towards social justice in a fuller sense? What are the prospects for reconciling a prejudice reduction model of change, designed to get people to like one another more, with a collective action model of change, designed to ignite struggles to achieve intergroup equality? Keywords: Prejudice; intergroup relations; social change Download Target Article Preprint:http://journals.cambridge.org/BBSJournal/Call/Dixon_preprint COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING 1. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate commenting on.  2. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target article or book. Please include names and affiliations of your co-authors, if applicable, in the text of your commentary proposal. SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions below. To suggest others as possible Commentators, or to nominate others for BBS Associateship status, please email bbsjournal(a)cambridge.org.  http://journals.cambridge.org/BBSJournal/Inst/Assoc HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL 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 as Author Username: CQwerty-545 Password: Qwerty875632 Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: http://www.editorialmanager.com/bbs If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. You can also submit a request for missing username and password information if you have an existing account.  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 (Dixon)" 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 Dixon" 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 in 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 MSWord or RTF format. In the Description field please add the first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Dixon" 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. In the case of Multiple Book Review, invitees will be sent a copy of the book to be commented upon if requested. With Multiple Book Reviews, it is the book, not the précis article that is the target of commentary. 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(a)cambridge.org, and type "remove" in the subject line. Regards, Gennifer Levey Managing Editor, BBS Cambridge University Press bbsjournal(a)cambridge.org http://journals.cambridge.org/bbs http://bbs.edmgr.com/