The People Behind the Hum
Editorial Board
Scholars, artists, and makers committed to invention over mere critique.
Founding Editors
Founding Editor
S. Andrew Stowe
Anderson University
S. Andrew Stowe works at the intersection of digital rhetoric, composition pedagogy, and networked media theory. His scholarship draws on the electrate tradition to develop new practices for invention in digital environments -- work that refuses to separate thinking from making.
Founding Editor
Sergio C. Figueiredo
Kennesaw State University
Sergio C. Figueiredo works across digital humanities, sound studies, and media theory, with particular attention to the affective and aesthetic dimensions of networked life. His approach treats theory as a practice to be inhabited -- collected, rehearsed, and continuously remixed.
Review Board
Coming Together
Review Board -- Humanities
Positions Open
H'MMM is assembling its review board. We welcome inquiries from scholars, artists, and practitioners across the H'MMM disciplines.
Review Board -- Sound and Music
Positions Open
We are especially interested in reviewers whose work crosses disciplinary boundaries and embraces experimental methods.
Review Board -- Image and Film
Positions Open
Reviewers comfortable evaluating multimodal, hybrid, and non-traditional scholarly submissions alongside conventional essays.
Review Board -- Media and Genre
Positions Open
Platform studies, digital culture, genre theory, and media archaeology perspectives especially welcome.
Parlor Guest Editors
Proposals Welcome
We invite proposals to guest-edit Parlor Conversations: curated exchanges of 3 to 20 voices responding to a shared exigence.
Join the Board
Interested?
Contact either founding editor to express interest in reviewing, proposing a Parlor, or contributing to the journal's development.
Get in TouchReview Philosophy
H'MMM uses a collaborative, dialogic review process that treats the reviewer not as gatekeeper but as co-investigator. Reviewers engage with submissions on their own terms -- evaluating whether work achieves what it sets out to do, not whether it conforms to disciplinary conventions.
We welcome serious works, unserious works, and works that refuse to decide which they are. Reviewers should approach formally experimental submissions with particular generosity, asking: does this work think? Does it invent? Does it do something that could not be done otherwise?