ASA Deadline

[venter]

May I take a moment to vent about the ASA deadline? It has always seemed strange to me that the deadline is directly after we all return from break, but this year most people haven't returned yet.

I have a coauthor who is backpacking in Europe and is sending me updates every time he has access to a computer (every other day or so). It's a shame that he can't enjoy the remainder of his trip, and that I'm stuck in the office on the weekend. (I know, I know...the deadline has been posted for a long time.)

But seriously, would a due date of next week throw the whole conference off? It's hard to finalize details while traveling.

/rant

[solidarity]

Every year I find myself in this same spot. You'd think I'd learn.

Full papers that aren't published/about to be published this far away from the conference itself is rough.

A lot of work to end up in roundtable to be sure...

[turrible]

I think the ASA is the worst of all general social science conferences in large part because of this.

Why the hell do we need to submit full papers 7 full months before the conference? Every time I see a really good paper presented there, it has almost always already been accepted for publication somewhere, defeating the purpose of the conference. If full length papers are still required, why not have the deadline sometime in march, for a May response? Still plenty of time for reservations and the like.

Not to mention that the deadline is really only in effect for the plebeians like us, since the connected people get into the preset sessions by invite.

[turrible]

Just to complement my post above:
other associations with early deadlines, like the AEA, publish the accepted papers in a special issue dedicated to the proceedings, making the submission a publication in itself (low impact, but still worthwhile). Meanwhile, the only goal of the asa is the feedback, since no one other than the organizer can ever see the paper, which is pointless with a 7 month delay.

[ok]

I use ASA as a way to force me to finish up a draft. Of course, one can submit something that is already under review or R&R at a journal, but I have had good success with working papers there. Besides, long delays between submission and the conference are good training for the actual manuscript submission process.

The one thing I would prefer is getting better feedback for rejected papers, which makes the effort worthwhile even if the paper isn't accepted.

[turrible]

Another reason I dislike the asa submission process is precisely the lack of feedback. I had a paper bounced around between two sections, to end up in one of their roundtables, and all I had in the paper comments was "good paper."

[crimey]

Reason #241 to be a criminologist.

ASC is so much more convenient and seems to be better managed.

[a crimnologist]

Jan 9, 2012 17:13:44 GMT -5 crimey said:

Reason #241 to be a criminologist.

ASC is so much more convenient and seems to be better managed.

Truth. Although in fairness to ASA, ASC must find it a little easier to manage submissions, as all of them are at least somewhat related to the general idea of crime. This leads to a conference with a much smaller and more coherent (in terms of related research) field, in addition to not having ten billion sociologists (or however many of you are out there) all vying for a limited number of panels.

[beenthere]

You actually cannot have your paper under review anywhere when it is submitted to ASA. There have been some scatterplot or orgtheory discussions on this in recent years. A typical strategy then is to submit to ASA and submit to a journal the day after...haven't broken any rules (for the rule followers out there.)

On feedback: presenting at ASA is not about getting feedback, it's about getting your work noticed/heard and padding your CV. You wouldn't submit full papers if it was about feedback. Having organized a panel before, do you really think a session organizer should be expected to give substantive feedback on like 40-50 papers for the popular sessions? Even 10? That's nuts. It's enough service work to deal with the crappy online system, ASA management, and clueless or entitled submitters. Get detailed feedback form peers, advisers or folks you meet in your area, but please don't expect it from session organizers. Would be nice if discussants actually provided detailed comments, or if other panelists could read the papers before hand though.

[turrible]

That is precisely the point:
the asa is not about feedback, it is not about making work available to a wide audience, it is not about anything related to the paper itself. It is about getting in, getting someone else to foot the bill because you are presenting, and then going there and networking collaborations/jobs/ etc.

My point about feedback was in the context of providing a full paper that is not available to anyone outside the organizer. What is the point then?

The ASA could be like the AEA, and publish the proceedings. Or they could be like a lot of other conferences, and demand only abstracts. Requiring full papers that are not made available anywhere and are not given any feedback, only as a gatekeeping measure to select one of the 4 or 5 papers in a session that, if you are lucky, will get one or two comments seems like a massive, massive waste of time.

[ok]

^^ I took seriously your comment about papers under review and checked. I don't know what Org Theory is on about, because ASA does not prohibit the submission of papers that are under review at a journal, or even R&R, so long as they won't appear before the meeting. They prohibit already accepted journal articles and papers that have been presented at other conferences. Perhaps you were thinking of AOM? Or maybe the ASA policy was changed from prior years. I find this to be quite acceptable, as getting into ASA could then be a form of promotion for one's already good R&R.

Here is the policy for 2012, available online: www.asanet.org/AM2012/Call_for_Papers_Policies.cfm

Original Contribution:
- Papers must reflect original work or major developments in previously reported work.
- Papers are NOT eligible if they have been:
1. read previously at ASA or other professional meetings,
2. published prior to the meeting or accepted for publication before being submitted to organizers for consideration, or modified in only secondary respects after similar readings or publication

In any case, it is what it is, and there are other options. I would also like to say that to my view, the advantage of ASA is the managed session topics; having gone to AOM in the past, they are better organized overall, and feature blind peer-review feedback, but when you look at their equivalent of open sessions, the panels end up being a bit hodgepodge.

[thanks ok]

Thanks ok! My heart skipped a beat when I read the above post. My ASA submission is currently under review--just submitted it.

[ok]

^ You're welcome. Good for you, and good luck!

[tricky]

That policy is tricky too. It reads that it's ok to submit a paper as long as it has not yet been presented at another conference. Does that mean it is ok if it has already been accepted to PAA and will be presented at PAA? People do this all the time.

[just do it]

Jan 10, 2012 13:30:07 GMT -5 @tricky said:

That policy is tricky too. It reads that it's ok to submit a paper as long as it has not yet been presented at another conference. Does that mean it is ok if it has already been accepted to PAA and will be presented at PAA? People do this all the time.

Man, if you are so worried about it then just give your presentation at Conference X a different name and then present at ASA. I have presented papers at other conferences prior to ASA on at least two occasions -- truly, nobody really cares.