|
Post by Methodologist on Jul 5, 2012 22:22:58 GMT -5
Look up Paul Popenoe's stuff. It was pretty brutal and highly controversial in Sociology when it was published. Despite this, SF (and other outlets that published his work) remained one of the top journals.
|
|
|
Post by SSR on Jul 9, 2012 20:33:06 GMT -5
3 months for an R&R. Two reviewers with positive comments. Editor's letter was peculiarly discouraging referencing the necessity for substantial changes when the reviewers suggested otherwise.
Received acceptance 1.5 months after re-submission.
|
|
|
Post by Normal on Jul 9, 2012 22:01:19 GMT -5
The standard SSR editor's R&R letter sound ominous and difficult, regardless of the reviewers' comments. It's the way it always is there, and certainly better than a flat out rejection.
|
|
anon
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by anon on Jul 9, 2012 23:41:11 GMT -5
To SSR, who posted earlier today -- keep in mind that SSR isn't double blind, and that the editor and/or staff may be reading this. In other words, people can figure out who you are.
|
|
|
Post by SSR on Jul 10, 2012 7:22:50 GMT -5
Good point anon. It has been a while since my experience at SSR, so identification could be difficult-- but point well taken.
The point of posting was simply to provide a data point for folks who may be considering the journal. I would also advise others to go through with the ominously worded R&R--and not worry about it too much.
|
|
|
Post by notblind on Jul 14, 2012 14:53:13 GMT -5
Setting aside the recent controversy surrounding SSR, what do folks think of the journal not using a double-blind system? Reviewers can see authors' names and affiliations.
|
|
|
Post by Both sides on Jul 16, 2012 12:54:46 GMT -5
I've published and reviewed there. I found the review process to be very rigorous and challenging. But, one paper I reviewed there sailed through very easily with minor modifications. So it depends.
They view themselves as an interdisciplinary social science journal, so publishing work there that challenges other disciplines may require persuading or overcoming the objections of reviewers from that field.
It's still an excellent journal despite the brouhaha. Definitely submit there if you would have before.
|
|
anon
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by anon on Jul 27, 2012 14:54:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aaaa on Jul 27, 2012 22:45:13 GMT -5
I had originally thought that this might have been a case of careless labeling by Regnerus, which was then picked up by conservative channels that ran with it. But after reading some of his public statements on his research, the whole tortured sociologist bit on the weekly standard, and so on, I think it is an appalling case of intellectual dishonesty.
Papers with competing views might have different limitations, which are problematic and all that. But they don't misrepresent their data and their findings for maximum shock.
Luckily for Regnerus, cases of dishonesty of this magnitude only ever lead to sanctions if they say anything negative about gun ownership, so he can continue to play the persecuted (r1, tenured, fully funded) academic.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Aug 13, 2012 4:44:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hack on Aug 26, 2012 11:42:33 GMT -5
Regnerus is a hack. Did you see some of the looney things he says in that crap documentary "Demographic Winter"?
There is an internal investigation going on at UT over this Cleveland steamer.
|
|
|
Post by call for papers on Aug 28, 2012 14:50:58 GMT -5
JOURNAL OF GAY & LESBIAN MENTAL HEALTH CALL FOR PAPERS
JGLMH is seeking responses to Mark Regnerus’ paper: How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study (Social Science Research 2012). It is argued that this paper suffers from bias in its scientific method and in the review process it underwent prior to publication.
Papers can be critical reviews of the paper from a scientific standpoint, can discuss the political implications of the paper (how it got published and how it might be used), and can talk about the ethical implications of the review process for SRS and what we might learn from it.
Please send inquiries or completed papers to editors@aglp.org by October 15, 2012. JGLMH (Taylor & Francis) is a quarterly, interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal publishing on issues in LGBT mental health. We are indexed in PsychInfo.
Mary Barber and Alan Schwartz, Co-Editors-in-Chief
|
|
|
Post by weber on Aug 28, 2012 15:25:26 GMT -5
Would JGLMH accept a paper that defended Regnerus's conclusions on the merits? (Assuming there are any.)
If not, then the editors face the same the dilemma as SSR.
|
|
|
Post by ominous on Sept 5, 2012 12:00:18 GMT -5
I recently received an R&R from SSR. A previous poster had it right. The standard R&R letter is pretty ominous-sounding. Not much of an ego boost. But it's nice to know that it's not just mine that makes it sound like I have a near Herculean task ahead of me.
|
|
|
Post by me too on Sept 5, 2012 15:32:58 GMT -5
Yeah, mine sounded ominous too, even though it was accepted upon revision and published.
|
|