|
Post by not a fan on Dec 9, 2013 17:39:01 GMT -5
Oh get off it "boom". They gave a flimsy justification to reject me out of hand. And yes, I do think $25 entitles me to a fair chance, something that was not apparent in my experience there.
|
|
|
Post by real talk on Dec 9, 2013 17:41:30 GMT -5
"not a fan" - Did you have colleagues read it before submitting? If not, you might consider soliciting feedback before submitting papers in the future.
|
|
|
Post by not a fan on Dec 9, 2013 17:51:26 GMT -5
Several people in fact. All of whom were surprised at their haste in the desk rejection.
|
|
|
Post by rnr on Dec 9, 2013 19:31:53 GMT -5
One thing to know about Social Problems is that, under the current editor, they have a policy of not giving 2nd R&Rs. If you get an R&R, they will either accept or reject your revisions rather than extend multiple R&Rs as many other journals do now.
|
|
|
Post by annnon on Dec 10, 2013 6:33:36 GMT -5
I got a desk rejection because my theory was "not sufficiently innovative". If I have to pay $25 to get a review, I would think you should come up with a better reason to reject. $25 doesn't entitle you to anything. Next time, write a better paper that can survive desk review at a mid-level journal like Social Problems. I'm going to a guess a male student at a top-10 department who has published in one of the flagships with their fancy-pants adviser. Am I close?
|
|
|
Post by please on Dec 11, 2013 8:27:24 GMT -5
don't feed the trolls
|
|
|
Post by this editor on Dec 14, 2013 11:42:21 GMT -5
This editor at SP has upped the desk reject quite a bit--several of my colleagues and my grad students got desk rejects, and while some of the justifications were reasonable others seem to show an editor with a particular agenda/strong preferences, such as an ethnographic article desk rejected b/c of "concerns about its small and anomalous sample" when the writer had published an SP article under the prior editor based on the same study [and yes, this article was a totally different topic/theoretical contribution even though the "sample" was the same]
|
|
|
Post by Foxxy on Dec 14, 2013 12:00:23 GMT -5
I'm actually in favor of higher desk rejection rates at top journals. That way reviewers are less burdened and researchers get faster feedback on their papers (it is useful to know if editor doesn't think the paper is a good fit right away rather than waiting months for it to be rejected). Of course ideally such desk rejections would be based on the quality of the paper or fit with the journal rather than on editor's individual preferences for certain subfields or methods (as the above poster seem to be implying).
|
|
|
Post by suggested on Dec 14, 2013 12:04:38 GMT -5
This editor at SP has upped the desk reject quite a bit--several of my colleagues and my grad students got desk rejects, and while some of the justifications were reasonable others seem to show an editor with a particular agenda/strong preferences, such as an ethnographic article desk rejected b/c of "concerns about its small and anomalous sample" when the writer had published an SP article under the prior editor based on the same study [and yes, this article was a totally different topic/theoretical contribution even though the "sample" was the same] Not having seen the two papers, it is possible that the same sample is completely appropriate for the issues raised in the first paper, but small and anomalous for the issue treated in the second paper. "Same sample" does not necessarily mean "Equally valid sample" for two different issues/questions.
|
|
|
Post by feeNOTwaived on Jan 14, 2014 12:32:53 GMT -5
The $25 submission fee is not waived for students. The $100 publication fee (if paper is accepted) is what Social Problems will waive for students.
|
|
|
Post by Um... on Jan 14, 2014 21:01:40 GMT -5
AJS has submission fees too you know...
|
|
|
Post by Major Tom on Feb 28, 2014 17:18:59 GMT -5
So based on the relevant posts in this thread - it sounds like the fact that my paper's status has been "article received" for weeks - means it's still undergoing internal review - standard procedure?
|
|
|
Post by yup on Mar 1, 2014 1:14:55 GMT -5
yes. if it's get the editorial go ahead and sent out to reviewers, it switches to status "External Review"
|
|
|
Post by runner on Mar 13, 2014 12:08:15 GMT -5
just for some perspective ... my economist colleague just submitted to a top journal, submission fee $500, desk rejected within 24 hours. (not that i think that's how it SHOULD be.)
|
|
|
Post by Woah on Mar 13, 2014 15:50:29 GMT -5
Woah that's pretty bad haha, but I do believe that the top Econ journals use that money to pay their reviewers. JFE charges $600 for a submission, and uses that to compensate reviewers...
|
|