Political scientists have designed this site as an outlet for their colleagues to share their experiences--both positive and negative--with submitting to or reading scholarly political science journals. Postings aim to promote more consistent adherence to an ethical code by journals and their contributors, an improved review process experience, and a superior product for readers.
Questions about the review process or the role of the journal editor? Post them as comments here.
posted by Political Scientists for Scholarly Journal Ethics @ 3:36 PM
114 Comments
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
114 Comments:
I'm new to the profession, and I'm wondering how do I decide whether a paper should be better published as a book chapter or a refereed journal article.
Are book chapters worse than journal articles? Why? (or why not?)
As I understand it, articles are considered of higher value than refereed journal articles in the discipline writ large. I assume that this is because the journal review process is perceived of as being more rigorous than the book review process. That said, there are some fields of study where many scholars spend a lot of time and get a lot of credit for writing book chapters (e.g., most work on campaign finance fits this bill).
You ALWAYS prefer a peer review journal to a non-peer review outlet (like an edited volume).
Do editors return reviews in any particular order (for example, most positive first) or are they returned to the author in the order they're received?
While I certainly understand those who would argue that it isn't part of the job description, do editors/reviewers often give advice on where a rejected piece might find a home out there (e.g., another journal, law reivew, book chapter, etc.)?
Thanks for the above feedback.
So are there some journals that are obscure enough or so low on the journal totem pole that it doesn't matter if you publish the piece in a book? Or is even a low level journal better than a book chapter?
All else equal, you want a peer review article. That said, you can trade on exposure, and if you think a certain edited volume will get a lot of "play", then it might be worthwhile to go that route.
I've been out about a decade, and served on a dozen or so search committees (yes, we do a lot of searches). I'd say this:
- Refereed is generally better than not, however
- A really good press can trump being refereed (that is, people will often look more favorably on a CUP/Yale/Chicago/whatever press book chapter than on the same paper in a very minor journal). But,
- Things coauthored with one's advisor, and especially things in books edited by one's advisor, get discounted. Some senior scholars seem to edit a book every 2-3 years for the sole purpose of stuffing it with chapters by their grad students, so as to ensure that they all have publications on their vitaes when they hit the market.
Reviews ordinarily come back to authors all at once, along with the editor's decision letter, either via email, or regular post.
Occasionally, an additional review will be sent separately, after the decision on the manuscript has been made (usually a rejection). This final review is included only as a courtesy to the author, to provide additional food for thought, and does not change the editor's decision.
Editors will recommend other journals, but usually only if they think that a manuscript might have a fighting chance. Here are some cases in which an editor might recommend submitting to another journal:
1. When a piece has received marginal, but not wholly negative reviews. This is quite common, and an editor might realistically communicate the truth: that a slightly different draw of reviewers may have changed the outcome from a reject to an R&R. Clearly, in these cases, a submission to a different journal is worth a try.
2. If a submission has been rejected primarily on the grounds that it is not appropriate for a general interest journal but might find an audience among specialists.
3. If an editor can see that a piece that has been roundly rejected could have a chance at a lesser journal once serious revisions were undertaken. Just because an editor does not judge an article to be of sufficient quality to merit an R&R at their journal, doesn't mean they believe it has no future anywhere.
Most editors recognize that the over 200 (yes, count 'em!) journals in the field serve different purposes, specializations, and audiences. And most also recognize that a high percentage of articles find their way into print after one or more rejections.
There is probably a limit as to how many submissions one should try before giving up on a paper and moving on, but that's for authors to decide.
11:30 AM's remarks sound scary to me as a third year grad student.
Is a coauthored publication with a faculty member really that useless? What about a coauthored publication in a good journal? Still no good?
11:30 AM, What kind of institution are you talking about here? I mean, really, how many grad students come out with two or more SOLO authored publications in top journals?!
I thought it was pretty good to have a couple of coauthored journal articles with a faculty member. I'm not aiming for Harvard!
You get _no_ credit for coauthoring with your advisor even if -- as is often the case -- you did all the hard work. Not fair, but it's the trutn.
12:07 is just wrong about receiving _no_ credit. That may be her/his experience, but it is not universal.
Evidence of coauthoring journal articles with faculty displays several positive attributes that DO count:
1. Someone thinks well enough of you to take you on as an apprentice. You are not a complete misanthrope.
2. You have had at least some exposure to the journal publication process, so you know something about what it takes to succeed.
3. You have probably received better than average training in your graduate program.
While coauthoring may not be as good as a solo piece in the same journal, it is just not true that it lacks value. Most universities would take someone who has coauthored over someone who has no publications at all.
11:30 here. I'm at a top-20/30 ranked R1 school. And 12:07 is nuts; note that my original post said "discounted," not "ignored." Nor are publications ever "useless" or "no good;" an APSR article with your advisor (or, for that matter, any faculty member at your PhD institution) won't count as much as an exactly equivalent (in terms of quality, etc.) solo paper, but it is still an APSR article.
Most of our own grad students have at least one (typically coauthored) publication by the time they are on the market, irrespective of their field. And most files that get a serious look in our hiring process also have at least one publication, though there have been one or two notable exceptions to that rule.
My point was not to be scary; instead, it was just to note that there are those who have caught on to some senior-scholars' practice of filling up one's edited volumes with current and former students, and who discount accordingly.
I'll second the middle line here -- work co-authored with your advisor will be discounted but is not worthless.
A twist on the publication venue, though: if you publish in APSR with your advisor but in second- or third-tier places on your own, this will be a red flag to those evaluating you. So I'd actually argue to hold your very best stuff back from your advisor, publish it as well as possible, and do stuff with your advisor that will or would otherwise land pretty low.
I wish this blog had been around in the past. I was generally unaware of the problems of co-authoring with the advisor and would have benefited from the knowledge.
Advisers are getting a bad rap in this discussion! Or maybe there are some pretty bad advisers out there and I'm just naive.
Advisers aren't typically out to appropriate the work of graduate students and publish it under their names, are they?
Most advisers are generous to work with graduate students, particularly those at second tier (institutions ranked below the top 10) institutions where the graduate students may not publish as much on their own. Surely advisers give students more assistance and ideas than the other way around.
I'm just not sure where some of these posts are coming from that imply that advisers are out to take advantage of graduate student efforts. From a professional standpoint, your adviser should be your best friend and cheerleader. If (s)he isn't, there's something wrong.
12:07 here. To those who say that I am "nuts", I am just repeating what I have heard from people at several top-10 departments (including my own). Coauthoring with other faculty and grad students is different than coauthoring with your advisor. The former is a plus. You will get little, but most likely no, credit for the latter.
To 12:07... on coauthoring with advisors...
OK, maybe that's the case at a top 10 program, but how many graduate students entering the market realisitically have a chance at landing an interview (let alone a job) at such a department? Top 10 is an awfully small comparison group.
I came out of a top 25 program with a cohort of graduate students that had coauthored with advisors and other senior faculty in the top-three general journals. Everyone was getting interviews-- much of the work on those papers (including the ideas) stemmed from the students' dissertation work or seminar papers. Granted, their interviews weren't at top 10 programs, but that had more to do with the market and pedigree.
There are generally two types of coauthored papers with advisors. One's where the advisor provides the idea & writes much of the paper (students collect data, discuss, analyze, etc.), and one where the idea comes primarily from the student (part of the dissertation, etc.) and the advisor (being seasoned) helps get it to the "next level." These are easily distinguishable for search committees (by reading the letters, etc.). Both represent very important mentoring.
But yeah, coauthored pieces with senior faculty are generally discounted-- but clearly they're worth a great deal to most search committees out there. Solo papers by graduate students in top journals are extremely rare-- and sure, those are the "golden" candidates on the market.
12:07 again:
to 10:48 AM
I think that some of our differences have to do with initial interviews (coauthoring a potential plus) vs. tenure decisions (coauthoring heavily discounted). My comments had the latter concern in mind.
Back at 12:07... OK, agreed. Once you've secured a position on the tenure track, you want to branch out your coauthorship. If you coauthor, avoid doing so with your advisors... instead focus on similarly situated (ranked) colleague.
Hello,
I'm new to this site and I need advise. I'm a third year Phd student in politics.Recently I sent a manuscript to a journal. At first, the editors were very prompt and they told me to shorten my piece to the 10,000 limit which I did. Then one of the editors emailed me to state that he will get back to me in a few days to inform me if the mansucript has been officially sent out for review. I waited for about 10 days and there is no response. I emailed one of the editors again to inquire about the status (since I know some journals give some sort of confirmation number). But to this day, there is no response.
I'm quite anxious about this, since I really need a single authored piece considering that I attend a low tiered institution that lacks reputation strength, so that I can get a decent job.I believe that my manuscript has potential since I have sent it to some faculty outside my department and they encouraged me to send it out.
What should I do? Is it possible that they did not take my manuscript seriously because I'm just a Phd student (an amateur)? I am quite tempted to withdraw my manuscript and re-send it to another. Should I?
Many thanks.
Dear 7:10, Sounds like this journal is under pathetic, careless, management. You are right to raise questions and wonder what is going on.
You might post a comment about the specific journal on this site. It would be useful for others to know about this. This blog is for sharing exactly these kinds of experiences.
How else can authors hold bad management accountable?
As for what >else< to do, my suggestion would be to give the editor(s) no more than one month to get your paper out and under review. If they can't get themselves organized within a month's time, then you have every right to withdraw and send elsewhere.
Authors don't exist to serve journals. But apparently that's the arrogant attitude that many editors have about what they do.
It is true that service at many journals slows down over the summer, and a few journals close shop for July-August. But aside from that, one month should be MORE than sufficient to process your manuscript, find reviewers, and send you either an acknowledgement that your paper is under review or an editorial rejection.
An editorial rejection is simply a rejection without review. Those are sent most often if the author has incorrectly surmised the nature of the journal's audience and sent their paper to the wrong journal. These decisions can be made by the editor on either substantive or methodological grounds. Such a decision should be very prompt, so as to not waste the author's valuable time.
Good luck! And I'm sorry for your frustration. It doesn't have to be this way. :-(
Dear 9:29,
Thanks for the advice. I will wait for a month. After that, I will withdraw my manuscript and turn it in to another journal. I hope that it is being processed and that they are just slow.I guess the fact that I haven't heard from them is good news?
Thanks again.
"It is true that service at many journals slows down over the summer, and a few journals close shop for July-August."
That's usually easy enough to find out - info like that should be posted somewhere on the journal's website.
I've experienced this twice this year, a first for me.
I'll write an R&R, send it back in, and the journal waits months to send it back out for review.
A 2nd tier and 3rd tier journal here, and I understand resources are tight, but that's just rediculous.
My question: Is this excusable or should I be as annoyed as I am? Waiting 6 months on one of the articles so far (in the R&R round).
I think what can sometimes happen is that editors will give out far more R&R offers than the journal can capably manage in a timely manner.
Realize that most R&Rs are probably accepted at 2nd or 3rd tier journals, or at least the odds of acceptance greatly improve on the second round.
So if too many R&Rs have been dealt, the queue of papers awaiting publication will grow longer and longer -- two years or more at some poorly managed journals.
As a way of keeping the wait down, editors may then delay making a decision or sending an R&R out for months.
Probably what a good editor would do if facing this situation would be to go on an austerity diet, and not put anything into the R&R queue for several months, even if it meant rejecting some good papers. Perhaps a better alternative would be for the editor to go to the publisher and ask for additional pages, at least temporarily, so as to shorten the wait time and improve service.
Unfortunately, some editors are either 1) clueless about journal management, or 2) don't care enough about authors to address these problems. There is a pervasive lack of accountability for bad journal practices -- the point of this blog. Authors have a right to expect better than this out of journals in the profession.
11:23 has a right to wonder what is going on. A decision on an R&R should take no longer than four months. Six months is an outer boundary. More than six months is not justified.
Do editors ever censor the referee reports they send back to authors? Say they get 1 negative, 1 mediocre, 1 very positive, and really don't like the paper themselves. Do they put the positive on the drawer and give the author less room to complain?
12:02, Wow! Now that's a really good question!
It would be really helpful if someone could raise this at an editors panel at a major conference. I think a lot of others would like to know the answer to this.
I would not be surprised if editors did this at times.
Here's the guiding principle, in my view: Generally, the editor should honor the reviewer's effort by sending their comments to the author. Otherwise the editor is wasting the reviewer's time. So according to this principle, editors should not willy-nilly censor the reports in the way you describe above.
From what I have observed, editors will sometimes not forward a review to the author when it has arrived well after the decision on the manuscript has been made.
At better managed journals, editors will hold off on a decision until three reviews come in. But in some cases they do make a decision with two reviews --especially if both are highly negative. A third review may or may not be sent if it arrives. If the first two are highly negative, a third positive review is not likely to change the decision.
Sometimes a review will be held back if it is especially nasty in tone. Other times a review might be held back if the editor senses that the reviewer has not done a conscientious job - short, three sentence reviews -- that show that the reviewer didn't spend any time with the manuscript.
Except for these circumstances, however, editors should not be in the habit of censoring the reviewer reports.
Journals don't "belong" to the editor. And the editor's independence, while important, is not without reasonable limits. The ethics guidelines at the bottom of the front blog page suggest what some of these limits should be.
12:02 - I know that International Studies Quarterly does not censor reviewers letters -- even for unprofessional content -- because they want to avoid a slippery slope towards manipulating the review process as you describe.
I think that censoring reviews to affirm an editor's judgment is clearly unethical. It is also unnecessary. Editors, AFAIK, aren't bound by reviewer comments and have every right to overrule reviewer decisions. Some editor's letters (on R&Rs, for example) state this right explicitly.
Remember that many journals also allow reviewer-->editor comments that an author never sees.
But, generally, I agree with 9:42's excellent discussion..
The former editors of PRQ censored one of my reviews to make it seem much less positive than it was.
I discovered this in an odd way. I was discussing my rejection and what to do next with a piece with a friend of mine who then told me that he was a reviewer on the piece. Once we compared notes, we discovered that the editor had deleted a portion from the letter that spoke to the strengths of the paper. Thus the review read as a reject, rather than the R&R he had written.
Very professional.
Can someone comment on the value of review essays in journals? Do authors receive the same credit for a substantial review essay (18-25 pages)- that they would for another kind of article? Or just what are the distinctions?
Absolutely nowhere near the same level of credit for a review essay as an original finding or argument.
It's an honor of sorts to be asked to write a review, but the credit in that case would already have been allocated for the same things that made you deserving of said honor.
You get credit and recognition for new ideas. Reviews don't have them. Or if they do you should probably consider putting it in an article instead of a review -- which people will assume is not your vehicle for getting your ideas out there.
I would put a review essay closer in terms of credit generated to a book review, than to an original article. The review essay is probably worth more than a book review but that's a better comparison.
Probably a better comparison is an article that is explicitly pedagogical, e.g., strictly an effort to explain something already well known in one field to political scientists. A new methods technique developed in another field, for which the author has no new additional insights, for example.
Good review essays make original or important analytic contributions to the field. They do so through the medium of a focused discussion of a few works. In other words, there's nothing inherently more or less contributory about the review-essay format than a typical article.
So, at least in my (largely irrelevant) view, the "credit" for a review essay depends on the nature of the specific review essay: is it really just a collection of short book reviews, or does it contribute to empirical and/or theoretical knowledge on its own?
Jeffrey Checkel's World Politics review essay on constructivism has, according to google scholar, been cited 258 times... more than any other article he's written. John Ruggie's extended review of Waltz's Theory of International Politics was similarly influential, both in its World Politics form and as a republished essay in Keohane's volume. I'm not arguing that number of citations is a proxy for quality, but I do think the importance of these review essays suggests that it would be a mistake to treat the form as "just" a slightly longer book review of the kind we find in journals like Perspectives in Politics.
Indeed, if we devalue review essays too much we risk losing an important medium for knowledge production in the field.
Indeed, if we devalue review essays too much we risk losing an important medium for knowledge production in the field.
Maybe so but you can't infer is from ought.
Anonymous: please elaborate. I'm afraid your application of Hume here leaves me confused.
"Absolutely nowhere near the same level of credit for a review essay as an original finding or argument."
What about a review essay that advances (albeit in abridged form) an original argument and has been peer reviewed?
To what degree do editors read authors' submissions? Sometimes I get the sense that editors have read my paper and thought about it in light of the reviews, and come to a decision. Other times I get the sense that editors just look at the reviews.
I can see why an editor wouldn't take a hard look at a paper if the reviews uniformly recommend rejection. On the other hand, if a the reviewers are split, shouldn't an editor spend some time reading the paper? Assessing the reviewers comments?
I mean, sometimes reviewers are flat out wrong. And I'm not talking about their assessments of the weight of a paper's contribution. Different people can view that differently. I'm talking about 2+2=4 matters. When a reviewer is wrong and recommends rejection on the basis of being wrong, isn't it the editor's role to catch that, perhaps using his/her editorial board?
Can any editors out there provide a sense of what you do or what you think is appropriate?
I think editors do have an obligation to read the papers when a split decision has come in. I agree with the editorial ethics statement to this effect posted on the front page. In my experience, rejection letters in cases of split decisions are far more difficult to write, requiring more explanation for the decision.
It is certainly possible that I have too hastily dimissed a paper that received a split decision. You try to be equally conscientious with every paper that comes in with a divided verdict, but there are times when the pressures of work and life overtake you and the decision comes across to the author as if it was dismissive, or even flippant.
On the other end of the process, what authors are often lacking is the context of what other submissions look like, and how these competing submissions are being evaluated by reviewers.
Bear in mind that journals do receive a regular stream of articles that get uniformly positive reviews. So if a review comes back positive, but unenthusiastic, or positive "if there is enough space" that will be evaluated differently than a review that says publish with a high priority, or a paper that receives a positive review, a lukewarm review and a negative review.
At some journals, the competition for space can be so intense that 'merely' positive isn't enough.
Some of the most difficult rejections come when a paper is positively evaluated, but the journal has just published two other articles on the same topic in the last six issues. This has happened to me on at least two occasions. I had to ask myself whether the journal really needed /another/ article on this subject, or if journal readers would be better served by allocating that space to someone else's work. As I recall, I did urge the authors to submit their work elsewhere. But I can certainly understand if the authors were upset by this, and considered it unfair.
In 10:43's case, and in light of what I have said above, my suggestion would be to appeal to the editor, explain your case, and see if they might seek another review in this case. They might well go along with this suggestion and give your paper a second chance.
Some of the most difficult rejections come when a paper is positively evaluated, but the journal has just published two other articles on the same topic in the last six issues.
------
Shouldn't that decision be made before sending the manuscript out for review. Why waste the author's time with an extended reviewing process if the result is just going to be a rejection based on extraneous considerations?
A good point. And perhaps you are right. But the editor doesn't often know how similar a manuscript is to what has been published recently until it has been reviewed.
Maybe the editor should read every submission that comes in, before it goes out for review, but I know of no editor that manages to do that. And for the journals receiving 150+ manuscripts per year, it would be especially difficult.
Well-tilled subjects such as voter turnout, or the democratic peace, are good examples. There is probably still room for good papers on these undeniably important topics, but there are many scholars working with the same data writing very similar papers. It doesn't make sense to take scarce journal space to publish very similar articles on the same topic, even if ALL of them are competently done.
But you do raise a good point about when these decisions ought to occur.
"Maybe the editor should read every submission that comes in, before it goes out for review, but I know of no editor that manages to do that. And for the journals receiving 150+ manuscripts per year, it would be especially difficult."
Don't those high-volume journals tend to have a number of editorial assistants who can help make those decisions?
This is where generalization breaks down.
Journal staffing ranges from one assistant to, perhaps, three. Usually these are R.A.s from the department's graduate program, working 20 hours per week.
Some editors may be able to trust their assistants to read and make these judgments, others won't. It's customarily not in their job description. It probably could be in some universities.
How long should one wait to make an inquiry about the status of a review? I understand that reviews take time, but how much time should pass before I start asking about the reviews? 4 months, 6 months, a year?
Unfortunately I have been waiting on some manuscripts for months. I've waited more than a year at one journal with constant iquiries. It's frustrating playing the waiting game when tenure is on the line.
I recently submitted a manuscript to International Political Science Review. They seem to be reputable journal that publishes innovative articles in the discipline. I would like to know what you guys think about its reputation in the grand scheme of things.thanks.
Four months is fine to make an inquiry. Even three months would be fine.
By six months you really should have reviews in hand -- at least the first round.
Nine months is pathetic -- a sure sign that the editor is disorganized, irresponsible, and doesn't care.
A year or more is criminal -- a sign that the editor should be prosecuted for negligence, or possibly sent to the firing squad.
I had one manuscript under review for about 8 months or so. After contacting the editor numerous times he begged us not to pull the article and assured us that the reviews would be forthcoming. After more than 14 months, we finally received our rejection. It was the Journal of Political Ecology or something like that for those that don't have a year or so to wait around.
That is just awful. But thanks for letting us know.
I had a similar experience at IMR,
"International Migration Review" --totally unprofessional and poorly managed.
Dditors do face some pressure to balance the content of their journal.
This is evidenced by the higher rejection rates for areas in which a lot of people are working (many submissions), compared to lower rejection rates for less popular areas (lower submissions).
What do people think of this common practice?
Discussion?
To me this has a ring of unfairness. It's a sort of "affirmative action" for weak areas of scholarship.
I don't buy that area with a lot of scholars working producing a lot of papers automatically means that it is a higher quality area of research. In fact, often what you get is a lot of articles making very small contributions, e.g., the democratic peace. This makes sense in that, after a flurry of research, the learning curve drops off. Naturally, this means that the new contributions aren't as profound and are less likely to be published.
Do decisions on accepting a manuscript for publication always require unanimous decisions among the reviewers? Or can it be granted by a simple majority formula (2 in favor Vs 1 opposed)? Or does it entirely depend on the editor's whim that can be arbitrary and capricious?
No, not at all unanimous.
Unanimous positive usually makes the decision easier for editors, but only a minority of reviews come back unanimously positive, though I suppose it could be as high as 5 percent (of all submissions) at some journals.
Of all papers given an R&R or accepted, my experience is that only 30 percent of those come back on the first round with unanimously positive reviews.
I have published some very good papers where opinion was divided, and where more extensive revisions were required. I suspect all editors would say the same.
Dear editor,
I have a similar question to the earlier post. I recently submitted a manuscript and got mixed reviews. One recommended acceptance with minor revision and said that it's a major contribution to the subfield.The other one was balanced with an R and R suggestion--with doable recommendations. He also gave me great tips in order to strengthen the manuscript. But the third one was brutal. He said that he recommends to reject it because of poor analysis, and the piece was unsuitable for the high standards of the journal. Aseessing all these, the editor in his decision suggested that I revise and resubmit. But the editor suggested thatI have to adhere to the demands of the third reviewer and do my best to substantially revise the paper, and he cannot guarantee the chances for acceptance.But I think that no matter what I do this third reviewer will not be pleased because it seems like my paper hit a nerve. Should I even bother to resubmit? I need your help.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Definitely you should resubmit.
It's worth taking the chance as the odds of acceptance greatly improve on the next round.
When you communicate with the editor, you can suggest that (s)he not send the revised manuscript back to R3. Sometimes an editor will send it to a wholly new reviewer, as well as one of the previous ones who was critical but not hopeless about the chances for revision (example: R2).
The editor may still send it back to R3, perhaps because (s)he highly values this person's judgment. And you could be right about R3 remaining unsatisfied no matter what amount of work you went to. But it's also possible that R3 comes back softer on the next round, realizing that the other reviewers (and the editor) obviously saw something to like about the piece.
Most importantly, go to great pains to indicate in the memo accompanying the resubmission how you revised in good faith -- attempting to fix-accomodate-change the paper according to the reviewers' and editor's directions. If you disagree with something they suggested that you change, give a complete and clear explanation. The editor should give you credit for this kind of effort, even if R3 remains unsatisfied.
Most of the time, when R&Rs are rejected, it's because the author didn't take the reviewers seriously. Other instances of rejection occur when changes were made that substantially weakened the findings, or made the contribution far less interesting.
Good question. This situation comes up far more than either authors or editors would like.
Dear Editor,
Is making a demand to the editor not to send it to the third reviewer unprofessional? Are we allowed to that? Is that common?
Thanks for the great advise.
I wouldn't exactly make it a 'demand' but a request. It's all in the phrasing.
Authors probably shouldn't be in the habit of 'demanding' anything of editors.
I see nothing unprofessional about it. The editor may choose to disregard your request, but there is nothing wrong with asking.
Question for the editors:
I sent a piece to a journal and it was rejected based on one review - the only review. I have fixed the manuscript up substantially, and it is now nearly a different paper. Is it possible to send it back to the same journal now that it is incredibly different in what and how it tests? I feel as though that particular journal is the best audience for the piece.
Retitle and rewrite it a little, and just submit it as a new paper.
But the editor suggested thatI have to adhere to the demands of the third reviewer and do my best to substantially revise the paper, and he cannot guarantee the chances for acceptance.But I think that no matter what I do this third reviewer will not be pleased because it seems like my paper hit a nerve. Should I even bother to resubmit? I need your help.
There are two types of editors. One type will blindly follow the reviewers and merely count the votes. In that case you are better off submitting to a different journal. Many editors do not recognize that some reviewers do not take the time to read and understand the manuscript. A decision to send a manuscript back to a reviewer should mean that the editor has confidence in the judgment of the reviewer.
As a former editor, I was open to a cover letter that presented evidence as to why a specific reviewer should not be used on a second pass. Be aware that many editors are not.
I submitted in a major medical journal. The editors were interested but had significant concerns on methodological aspects. They invited me to send a revised version. In the mean time, the entire editorial board was fired and replaced with new interim member. After substantial revisions from my part, I resubmitted. This time, the paper was immediately rejected without even any consideration.
This is a paper that would potentially have an important impact in public health policies.
My question: is there any principles for new acting editors to be consequent to previous editorial board's decisions in respect of the work and time from authors ? Thanks for you comments
Well, there is something wrong with editors who do not respect the judgments and decisions of previous editors. Editorial independence does not extend that far. Several others have had this same frustrating experience if you examine the archives on this site.
Having said that, there is no ethical requirement that an editor, new or old, accept a revision-and-resubmission. There are cases where the revision does not respond faithfully to the reviewers' feedback and advice. There are also cases where the results change with the revision, undercutting the paper's original contribution -- possibly even making the revision /worse/ than the original.
Aside from these circumstances, however, the new editor should respect an author's additional effort to revise -- even going to a 3rd round of revisions if necessary to iron-out additional issues specified by the new editor.
These editorial changes can be ugly when new editorial teams simply dis the old team's decisions.
Just want to extend my many thanks to the blog. I asked for advice a few months ago. I incorporated the advice in my revisions. Now my piece will be published. Please help keep this blog active. It is a very good source of valuable information in what I've discovered to be a very complex and capricious process.
3:43:
The blog gods are happy for you, and are pleased to share some of the credit.
But give yourself a big pat on the back for having the good sense to seek advice.
How many young faculty and grad students lack the courage to ask about these essentials -- or are too arrogant to recognize what they don't know?
Too many, and they fill the ranks of those denied tenure.
In response to the question from 6:01 about resubmission of a previously rejected piece that has been completely overhauled.... That is a great question. I edit a major field journal. Fairly often, I have to make decisions about manuscripts that are badly flawed but derive from research agendas that have a lot of promise. In these cases, the decision about whether to r&r or reject is based on the magnitude of the necessary changes. If the conceptual argument is basically on point and the basic structure of the empirical work is sound, then the decision is an r&r. But if the magnitude of the necessary changes is so significant that the resulting paper would be qualitatively different than the initial submission, then my decision has to be a rejection. That said, if the author then proceeds to make the changes suggested by the referees, basically redoing the analysis and rewriting the paper, and chooses to send the new manuscript back to the journal, the only appropriate response from an editor is to treat that manuscript as a new submission, beginning the referee process from scratch. Still, in these cases I don't think that the author should follow the advice of 6:02 and simply, "Retitle and rewrite it a little, and just submit it as a new paper." Instead, my advice would be to make the case in a letter or email message accompanying the new submission that your paper is a qualitatively different manuscript from the rejected version and that it should be treated as such. Generally speaking, the best way to deal with journal editors is to be as straightforward as possible. It is in an editor’s interest to place in his/her journal research of the highest possible quality and not to act like a bureaucrat. On occasion, this means proceeding with manuscripts that are overhauled versions of submissions that previously have been rejected. I know how difficult the referee process can be and hope that this comment helps.
Some journals that have online submissions ask for preferred and non-preferred reviewers. Is it strategically wise to give the names of non-preferred reviewers?
A question to editors: how is this information used?
I think it's fine to provide this information.
Editors want to make sure that your manuscript is reviewed fairly -- that someone isn't just 'out-to-get-you' for some reason unrelated to the quality of the research.
During the course of a career, people do develop enemies, for professional and other reasons. Sometimes this is exaggerated paranoia, other times it's very real.
Controversies develop over schools of thought. Scholars expose each other's mistakes or flaws, as in replication articles, and make enemies that way. Or they write articles critical of someone's work, or review essays, book reviews.
And sometimes it's even more personal than that, as when a colleague steals another colleague's spouse -- yep, I know of such a case!!
At the University of Chicago a few years ago, you were in the minority on the faculty if you weren't sleeping with someone else's spouse (or a grad student)!!
While editors may avoid those listed as non-preferred, it is less likely that they will go to those listed as 'preferred', although they might use such a list in areas of research where manuscripts are especially difficult to place.
I second the comments from 11:09. It is unusual at my journal for authors to provide requests for and/or against the selection of particular referees. Still, such requests do accompany around five percent of the submissions we receive. I generally ignore requests in favor of contacting certain individuals as referees unless the request is for someone I would have contacted anyway. Requests NOT to contact certain individuals as referees are taken far more seriously. If there is a scholar that an author believes would be biased against her/his work for personal or other inappropriate reasons, it makes perfect sense for the author to mention the concern in the submission letter, perhaps including an appropriately worded sentence or two explaining the nature of the problem. My advice also would be to keep such a list very short and not to include scholars simply because of the methodological or other scholarly differences they might have with your work.
Thank you 11:09 and 2:55. That is very helpful.
How typical is it for an editor to invite the author to revise the manuscript, but say he/she will treat it as a "new submission"? Is it rational to send the piece back? It's happened to me twice within the last year and I thought I would ask editors why they would do this. Thanks!
This is often called a "reject-and-resubmit" in editorial parlance.
I wouldn't call it typical at all.
In over 800 reviewed manuscripts so far at the journal I edit I have never offered one.
Other editors may differ, but I would still bet that it is infrequent. Plus, many authors would prefer to take their chance at a new journal once they have been rejected.
Sometimes an author will inquire after a rejection about whether I will have a new version of the manuscript reviewed. And I will reply that I will treat it as a new submission, which involves starting the review process over again. But that is probably not quite the same thing as sending a letter suggesting revisions, and then promising to begin the process over once those revisions are completed.
Would love to get people's opinion on Philosophy and Social Criticism. I really like the journal and recently published a piece there, but don't really know what people generally think of the journal.
Hi all:
I just wanted to leave a note here to let people know that I recently took over as co-editor of the journal Congress & the Presidency (http://spa.american.edu/candp). I now handle all congress manuscripts for the journal (Chuck Walcott continues to manage presidency manuscripts) and manage the day-to-day operations of the journal, which is housed at the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.
I'm very excited about the opportunity to improve the journal in the coming years. One of the first things I've been tackling is speeding up the review process. We now encourage the submission of manuscripts electronically and we will handle all other communications in that way as well. I also guarantee that no manuscript will sit on my desk for more than a day or two waiting to be sent out for reviews or waiting for a decision. We will be very committed to an efficient and well-managed review process. That does not mean that everyone will have a decision within 6 weeks; sometimes there are issues with reviewers that cannot be avoided. But my office will do everything it can to assure a timely decision.
Of course, that is only the beginning of the steps I'd like to take to improve the journal. If anyone (including other editors or former editors) has suggestions or advice they'd like to send along, please do so through this forum or by contacting me directly. There is a lot of good work being done on congress and the presidency, and I'd love to see more of it ending up at Congress & the Presidency.
Thanks,
Brian Schaffner
Brian:
I'd suggest putting together a couple of special issues, with some high-profile scholars. That would be a great way to kick-start the journal and expand its readership.
Thanks for the suggestion. This is actually something I had been thinking about and I'm glad to hear that others (or at least one other) think it would be a good way to go.
If anyone has an idea for a topic that C&P should publish an issue on, please feel free to approach me with those ideas. My email is schaffne@american.edu.
Best,
Brian
Should I list the titles of papers under review on my c.v.? I ask because my c.v. is online and a google search of the title goes straight to my c.v. Therefore, an unscrupulous reviewer could determine authorship. Perhaps editors should request that titles be removed from the blind copy?
Really good question.
If you think it's important that you list work under review on your c.v., and post your c.v. on line, then I would suggest altering the title somewhat, so that a Google search does not turn up the precise title of the paper you have submitted for review.
A related issue is that workshop and conference proceedings are also posted on-line, and are searched by Google. The titles of papers even from small local workshop presentations may pop-up when a title is searched.
The only way out of this is to be a bit more creative with titles. Sometimes scholars think that there is only one perfect title for a paper. There are probably several suitable titles.
It seems that a lot of the questions herein are related to the processes underlying journal submission and decisions. From a doctoral candidate with experience in a larger journal office, these are important questions. Some journals, the one I will cite here is International Studies Quarterly, provides a yearly report wherein you can find turnaround times, who/what (generally) gets accepted, and other comments directly from the editor as to the number of manuscripts processed, and more about the process itself. Some of the more pertinent commentary which moves beyond the summary stats talks about how R&Rs and decisions are handled.
I included a link to the report itself.
http://www.isq.unt.edu/2006_report.pdf
Transparency is important. Keep the blog rolling.
Thanks for this link. Very helpful to consider this kind of information as authors consider where they want to submit.
If there are other links to related information published by other journals, this would be a good place to post them.
Dear Editor:
What is the etiquette for submitting multiple pieces to the same journal at the same time? For example, if I have a solo authored piece under review at a journal, could I send a coauthored piece to that same journal? Would it hurt the chances of one or both?
As another example, if you have something that’s forthcoming in a journal, can you submit another piece to the journal? I know Robert Powell can do it in the APSR, but what about the rest of us? Thank you very much.
I'm not an editor, but I don't think there's any problem with submitting more than one paper (co-authored or not) to the same journal at the same time, as long as the papers are different, of course. I think it's not uncommon for people to have more than one paper under consideration at the same journal. And, yes, if you have a forthcoming paper, you can submit a new one to the same journal. I don't think one paper would have any bearing on the fate of another; the journal should treat them separately.
There must be many authors who regularly have more than one paper under review at the same journal at the same time. Otherwise we wouldn't see several papers by the same author coming out in successive issues of the journal.
I would take that as a signal that it's okay to submit when you have another submission under review.
As an editor, you treat each submission independently, so long as they are not on the same topic.
Moreover, it is commonly the case that an author will have different coauthors on pieces that are submitted to the same journal. It obviously would not be fair to the coauthors to subject one paper to greater scrutiny than another.
My apologies in advance for the long post. I'm an editor at one of the top IR journals, and, in reading through the various posts, I felt compelled to make some comments. Some helpful (I hope) responses:
To 7:10 pm - Most, if not all, of the major IR journals are run by a single faculty member--the editor--and one or two managing editors. These are all people who have other things to do, which means their journal-related work is limited to specific times and days. You may submit a manuscript on a Monday, but not receive a response 'til Friday. This isn't because your manuscript is somehow subpar or undeserving of immediate consideration, but because the managing editors just so happen to work only on Fridays. This is a general fact of journal maintenance. Patience is a virtue in this case.
That being said, it would be ridiculous to wait a month just to have your manuscript sent for review. There's no reason why that shouldn't be done within a week, two weeks max. If you are waiting long amounts of time just to have your manuscript sent for review, that's the editor's fault, and no one else's (unless the managing editor is especially pathetic). The editor is the one who selects reviewers, and he/she has an obligation to make those decisions quickly.
To 12:02 - The short answer is yes. Editors censor reviews quite often. But it's generally not because they "just don't like the paper." Rather, it's more often the case that one of the reviewers just isn't at the same level as the others, and his/her opinion, as enthusiastic as it may be, doesn't count for much. Authors--who have no knowledge of the various reviewers' identities--will immediately latch on to the positive review and vehmently protest against the rejection of their paper. This creates obvious problems for the editor, who would rather avoid such confrontations. The easy solution: edit out the more enthusiastic parts of the review. I'll refrain from commenting on the ethics of this practice.
To 10:43 - Editors rarely give in-depth consideration to a manuscript that receives mediocre reviews. They just don't have the time. The first threshold is this: is this paper a serious piece of research thats fits our journal's guidelines? If the answer is yes, the manuscript is sent for review. A paper that receives highly polarized reviews and/or is overtly salient to current issues in the discipline may merit a deeper reading, but that's pretty much the limit. We would all like our papers to get careful and close readings, but that's just not realistic. On the other hand, papers that receive supportive reviews nearly always DO receive a deeper reading, just so the editor can ascertain whether the reviews are actually correct in their assessment of the article's merits.
Regarding split decisions: there's a post in another thread that provides the correct answer. There are currently too many good papers with unanimously supportive reviews for editors to "waste" time on split decisions. Painful, but often true.
To 2:43 - No. That's just not the case. As mentioned above, most major IR journals consist of 2 to 3 people. That's it. The "editorial board" is largely symbolic, aside from receiving a disproportionate number of papers to review. And no editor is going to rescind his/her authority to make decisions on a manuscript to some lowly managing editor (read: grad student).
To 1:59 - I believe three months is considered a prompt turnaround at this point. Four months might warrant an inquiry, but no less (unless you've been promised otherwise). One thing that will NOT accelerate the review process is inquiring about the status of your manuscript. At best, it will result in an early rejection (since you seem so eager for a decision). Delays on manuscripts are almost always due to tardy referees. Refs can take months to submit their reviews, and some editors are not particularly good about reminding them of their obligation. Repeated inquiries just frustrate the editors, who are themselves already frustrated by their referees not submitting reviews in a timely manner.
To 1:00 - I'm going to disagree with 1:49 and say that the trend is moving toward unanimity. There are just too many good papers being submitted, and too little time on the part of editors, to spend time deliberating over split decisions.
To 1:50 - An editor will often send a revised manuscript to the most critical reviewer precisely because he/she is the most difficult to satisfy. A positive response from him/her means the paper really is worth publishing. Depending on the editor, even being halfway successful at satisfying a particularly critical ref may be sufficient. Of course, a good editor should be able to differentiate between genuine criticisms and defense of personal research interests. That being said, a common practice at many journals is to send the revision to the reviewer who had the worst things to say in the first round. So under no circumstances should you ignore or attempt to sidestep that reviewer's critique.
To 6:01 and 6:02 - Do NOT do this! Editors are not stupid. They will recognize a paper that has been merely re-tooled and re-titled. Transparency is key to this whole process. simply say that you previously submitted an earlier version of the article, but this version is substantially (emphasize the SUBSTANTIALLY) different than the first. Trying to sneak in a revision as a new paper is a good way of embittering the editors.
To 5:27 - Editors are usually quite respectful of an author's request to not send the manuscript to a particular reviewer. Just don't overdo it. Two or three names is probably the max. On the other hand, a "send the manuscript to these people" request is much less likely to be honored, unless the paper is sufficiently far outside the editor's expertise as to render such a list helpful.
Again, apologies for the length of this post. I hope I've not obstructed the flow of the thread too much.
So, upon submitting a paper, how long should I wait for confirmation that it has been sent out for review before I can inquire about that? I don't want to annoy the editors, seeing as to how much stress they are already under. But I do want to know asap if they are just going to reject the paper or send it out for review.
Should editors send a receipt that an article has been sent out for review within a week or 2? I know if it is sent out it will take 3-4 months to get a reply. The question is how long to wait before asking if it is even sent out?
Only an excessively cranky editor would be annoyed by an inquiry about whether your paper has been sent out. Of course there are those out there who still think they're doing a huge favor just to look at your paper. And they appear to populate the APSR editorial group.
I would say that if you don't receive an acknowledgement, even an automated message, within 7-10 days, by all means inquire.
If you receive no reply, you should feel free to send it to another journal.
Journals should view themselves as in full-scale competition for the best papers. If running a tight ship at my journal means that I get better submissions, I'm going to provide good service.
Let these poorly run journals drive themselves into the ground. Journals you've never heard of do become good, and well-known journals become crap.
It's more competitive than you might think. And it should be!
Well, obviously don't send it to another journal without first withdrawing it from the first one. Having the same paper under review at more than one journal at the same time is against most if not all journals' policies, and in some cases can even get you punished.
If a journal doesn't respond to your inquiry over the status of the paper (i.e. if it has been sent out for review) is it still necessary to withdraw the paper? Obviously not getting a reply regarding whether your paper has been sent out goes a long way to say it hasn't. And if they do come back after 2 months to say it has just been sent out, they can't possibly penalise you for it can they?
Perfectly reasonable question.
In my estimation, NO, they cannot penalize you for it.
If a journal editor is so irresponsible, so lazy, and so unprofessional so as to not return a reasonable inquiry within 2 weeks (much less 2 months!) then you would be crazy /not/ to withdraw the paper -- especially if you are on the clock.
But, just to be sure, you might give the editorial offices a phone call. Sometimes email messages have been known to get caught in spam filters, or otherwise not reach the intended recipient.
Some of these editors need to get a clue, and maybe they'll get one if they see that their lousy management practices are driving good papers and authors to other journals.
I have an odd question to ask. I recently tried uploading my manuscript for an online submission. We are required to upload two copies, one with author details and one without. But after doing so, when reviewing the final pdf version of my script, the system combines BOTH manuscripts together. Is this the norm for online submissions? I have always submitted hard copies but am required to submit a soft copy this time.
Also, I have chosen the file designate as main document for both. There is NO file designation Main Document- Not for Review for me to choose. Please help. Thanks.
I don't think there's anything seriously wrong here. It may seem a little odd to upload 2 versions of your ms. to an on-line system, but you can be sure that the link to the manuscript the reviewers will see will not be to the same pdf that you created with the original upload.
There are usually a couple of steps of manuscript processing between upload and reviewer invitation. This is when the managing editor makes a pass to ensure that everything is blind.
And btw, if a manuscript does accidentally go out the door with names attached, reviewers nearly always alert the editor that a mistake has been made (providing the journal is a double-blind peer reviewed journal)
A reasonable question, though.
Thanks for the reply. It's not odd that we have to submit two copies of our manuscripts online. But it is odd that they are combining both copies together into one large final pdf document which states it is my final document. So this is normal right?
May not be perfect or ideal, but it sounds like it could well be 'normal.'
What goes out to reviewers and what is created in the on-line pdf can be two different things.
Any thoughts on sending a Reply to an article at a journal that you found really infuriating? Conventions to this? Suggested length?
Comments from editors here would be useful. When you receive responses to articles you publish, what are your criteria for running these?
Well, if you want to just vent about the piece to the editor, and not get into print, just send something short and to the point.
If you have a full-blown reply or a refutation with evidence (data), then it sounds like it warrants an article in the form of a research note. Length might run 8-10 pages.
If the original paper was flawed in some way, as in the author having made a mistake, or series of mistakes, then length might be 4-8 pages.
If the criticism is judged to be sufficiently pointed and consequential, the editor might invite the original author to respond, and both pieces may get into print in a future issue of the journal.
I think a lot depends on WHY you were infuriated with the original article.
If you were infuriated because it simply expressed a different opinion about some subject, then that's not be a good enough reason to bother with a comment. Academic journals are usually not designed to be outlets for academic op-ed pieces. Most will not have the room to publish your opinions about someone's research.
If the piece was infuriating because it got basic facts, investigative procedures, and methods wrong; or there were obvious mistakes that reviewers failed to catch, then that probably merits someone pointing out the problems and offering a remedy.
A note on this topic, some journals don't publish research notes at all. As 2:07 notes, they are restricted in page output, association policy, and other numerous criteria. Every journal is different. If you want to try to publish a response, you should first see if that outlet considers that type of work for publication.
A letter to an editor venting won't accomplish much, the piece has already been printed. If it's infuriating because of something in line with plagiarism, point it out and something can be done such as a formal retraction. Otherwise, if you found something conceptual or methodologically unsettling, there there is not much that can be done. Everyone has an opinion, and they can't all see print. No editor is going to publish an addendum claiming "So- and-so disagrees with so-and-so..."
If you found the piece so ill informed/flawed that you are willing to write a piece refuting it, the best bet is to draft a full paper addressing the topic on your own correcting the flaws of the original. The likelihood of your work being both formally accepted by the journal and informally accepted in the field is likely to occur if the original piece was so flawed as to merit such a reaction.
Does anyone have experience on how to retain the right to publish your own articles (published in a journal) on oyur website?
I just got referred to the following website: http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/scae/ , which provides you with a form that you can attach to the copyright agreement and through which you can apparently retain some of your rights. Does anyone have any experience as to how publishers react to this?
Can anyone recommend a good online source which provides the ranking of political science journals? Thank you in advance.
A good source:
http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.
uk/Politics/papers/2008
/McLean%20Blais%20Giles%20
and%20Garand%20(April%
202008).pdf
Get it all on one line.
I recognize that most journals do not permit one to simultaneously submit a manuscript for consideration at another journal. However, according to their website, International Security allows this, provided that the author informs them of the fact (see "policy on simultaneous submissions"). In view of the time to decision, this is kind of the editors, but less useful than it might be if they are the ones to have such a policy. Does anyone happen to know of other journals that follow a similar policy?
This is not really a journal question, but I hope that you anonymous blog readers will forgive me for straying off-topic a bit. I am submitting a book manuscript for review and the publisher indicated that they'd be Ok with someone else doing a simultaneous review. I've made a couple of inquiries with no success. Does anyone know of presses that are open to that sort of thing?
You will just have to ask around, unfortunately. It is up to the editors at the presses.
It's usually easier to get approval for simultaneous submission if its your 2nd or 3rd book, as opposed to your first. First books are a bigger risk for the presses, therefore the greater reluctance on simultaenous submission.
Of course sometimes what editors do is talk to one another about what has been submitted simultaneously. One press will go first, and get reviews within 2-3 months, then the other press that has simply been holding the manuscript will move ahead if the first press rejects. This is not really a simultaneous review process, but it does lessen the risk for the presses.
wanna repair your credit report?
is your credit score low?
you cant get a good job or low interest loan?
We have the solution take a step and visit our website
http://affiliates.paramountcreditsolutions.com/pm_click.php?id=5249&pgid=171&subid=david
let our Credit Mentor worry about all these issue.
[url=http://affiliates.paramountcreditsolutions.com/pm_click.php?id=5249&pgid=171&subid=david]credit[/url]
Credit Repair
Colleagues, I have the following question: is there a political science journal that published contributions that could broadly be categorized as belonging to a critical studies tradition? I particularly think about post-colonial, post-structuralist, feminist etc. inspired political analysis, mostly qualitative stuff. Third World Quarterly and (the relatively new journal) International Political Sociology come to mind. Any other journals anyone can think of?
To 10:11 above: Try New Left Review as well. It sounds overtly partisan, but publishes loads of theory/normative/post-modern stuff that can't make it into the quantitative journals. As an added bonus, it's highly ranked in the SSCI.
Where does a critical response fall on the totem pole? Above book review but below actual article? Is it worth doing these?
Depends on the type of place. Pretty limited value at R1 institutions, perhaps one-third of an article.
Higher value at smaller institutions, but probably not much higher since many smaller institutions are book oriented.
Is it acceptable/ethical to submit the same manuscript to multiple journals for consideration for future publication?
No, not simultaneously. This is not acceptable.
I have submitted a paper to political behavior, it is now under review for close to 6 months. Does anyone point out time spans regularily that surpass the 4month mark? Has anyone ever witnessed a serious trade off between criticizing the length of the review process and the acceptance rate? I know that contacting the editor won't influence the reviews but the final decision is still up to editor. Any houghts?
Where would you publish a paper on the recent history of International Relations (as a discipline)? Is there an audience for such articles in political science journals? or should I contact historians of the social sciences?
Thanks for your help!
If an editor can see that a piece that has been roundly rejected could have a chance at a lesser journal once serious revisions were undertaken. Just because an editor does not judge an article to be of sufficient quality to merit an R&R at their journal, doesn't mean they believe it has no future anywhere.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home