|
Post by wondering on Jul 27, 2011 17:59:08 GMT -5
Hi, Just looking for people's thoughts on what a "top tier" journal is. Is it just the big 3 (ASR, AJS, Social Forces), or are other well-known journals (e.g., Social Problems, Journal of Marriage and Family, or Social Networks) also "top tier". Specifically, I am curious as to whether or not most search committees would consider Social Networks a top tier journal. I am aware of and have read the impact score literature and am somewhat aware of journals' comparative rankings, but I am just wondering where the magical "top tier" cutoff is. Any ideas? Thanks,
|
|
|
Post by my2cents on Jul 27, 2011 18:02:42 GMT -5
ASR, AJS, Social Forces are the big three. Landing an article in Nature is along the same lines. After that, it's largely specialty journals with their own prestige hierarchies.
|
|
|
Post by aaaa on Jul 27, 2011 19:45:08 GMT -5
Are you talking about visibility or prestige?
If it is prestige, that is something more informal, and generall people consider AJS and ASR the top 2, with SF a notch below.
If it is actual visibility, social networks is top 15 in impact factor (13 to be more precise) and social forces has dropped out of the top 20.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2011 20:04:53 GMT -5
I'm not sure what is going on with these responses but journals like Nature and Science are not "in the same lines" as ASR, AJS, SF....period. This is actually a very inaccurate comparison. Nature, Science, and many of the bio-medical journals are scored in the 80s, 90s,+, where ASR, AJS, SF are in, what, the 4-6 range….the exact number is irrelevant. Naturally if you can land a Nature or Science level article then you are a stud…I can’t recall the last Sociologist doing this.
The important thing is looking at this within your field, which is what I think that the original poster is really asking. Clearly journals like ASR, AJS, SF are viewed as overall “top-tier” journals in Sociology but this can be misleading in terms of what the original posters underlying question, I suspect. Are journals other than ASR, AJS, SF viewed as “top-tier.” The answer is yes. I am not personally familiar with “Social Networks” (and it’s impact ranking) but what matters is its relative ranking within a specific field of study. For example, JHSB is the premier journal for sociology of health researchers but its ranking is below ASR, AJS, SF. If you are a sociologist doing health research then landing a JHSB is huge. Again, this is just an example.
Hopefully you have a mentor that does social network analysis that can actually answer this question….if not then go to the journal website…usually they announce they are the “leading” journal in this area if they are.
|
|
yep
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by yep on Jul 28, 2011 8:30:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sf on Jul 28, 2011 8:41:59 GMT -5
At least in my department, there really is a top-two (ASR, AJS), and a near-first-tier that includes Soc Forces, Soc Problems, JHSB, Demography and maybe a few others (that people here aren't publishing in). Point is that an ASR is worth a good deal more than a SF.
|
|
|
Post by same on Jul 28, 2011 8:56:31 GMT -5
Same here. At my department there is a huge gap between AJS/ASR and the others. Social Forces and Social Problems are considered to be about equal and then the prestige hierarchy goes to top specialist journals--JHSB for health, Demography for demographers, Soc Theory for theorists and so on.
I have also heard a bunch of grumblings about how the Vandy ASR editors are handling things. People here don't seem impressed by R&Rs there now since they are given away pretty freely then the paper is eventually rejected.
|
|
|
Post by surprised on Jul 28, 2011 9:10:55 GMT -5
Demography is only considered on the same tier as Social Theory? Really? I would put it up there with AJS and ASR, but perhaps I'm goofy. Any other thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by yes on Jul 28, 2011 9:21:44 GMT -5
Sure, in a sociology department. It would carry more weight in a program with a demography emphasis but the overwhelming majority of sociologists don't read Demography and don't pay attention to it. Demographers have a very specific positivist ontology and epistemology that loads of sociologists don't agree with or share. It is nowhere near something like ASR or AJS in terms of impact on the discipline. Demography isn't a generalist journal, just a prestigious specialty journals like the others.
|
|
|
Post by crimnology on Jul 28, 2011 9:38:32 GMT -5
Demography, Criminology, Social Psychology Quarterly
These are important journals, but yes, they are subdiscipline journals with not nearly the audience of ASR, AJS, SF.
|
|
|
Post by ASR on Jul 28, 2011 10:07:00 GMT -5
I have also heard a bunch of grumblings about how the Vandy ASR editors are handling things. People here don't seem impressed by R&Rs there now since they are given away pretty freely then the paper is eventually rejected. Can you elaborate on this? Has there really been a big shift in the rejection rate of R&Rs?
|
|
|
Post by same on Jul 28, 2011 10:49:42 GMT -5
In 2010 ASR had either a 6% or 8% acceptance rate depending on how you measure it: www.asanet.org/journals/editors_report_2010.cfm#ASRUnfortunately the editors don't provide any information on bench rejections, first round rejections, or R&Rs leading to eventual rejection. Based on discussions in my network, word is that the four editors sometimes give conflicting advice (e.g. E1: you MUST do y; E2: absolutely under no circumstances do Y). This leaves authors in an impossible situation. I suppose this is a result of having four editors to please. R&Rs are also much more common but there are a lot more second round rejections of R&R even if you exactly follow everything suggested in the reviews/letter. This is quite different from the OSU editors and major contention a lot of people seem to have. We had a job candidate last year with two R&Rs at ASR and the search committee spent some time discussing whether that means anything given the current editors (consensus was no). The people in my corner of the world are almost all universally dissatisfied with the job the Vanderbilt crew is doing. One cranky senior scholar considered filing a formal complaint to the ASA pub council after getting really burnt on an R&R that was ultimately rejected for trivial reasons (think too many digits in your table sort of thing). I can't imagine she/he actually will though. These are just my anecdotes so I'd be hesitant to generalize too strongly. I'm sure plenty of people have had more positive experiences. Anyone else what to chime in?
|
|
|
Post by UTRGV Sociology on Jul 28, 2011 11:01:10 GMT -5
That is a rather sad comment on the state of the discipline. Maybe committees should spend less time discussing what 2 R&Rs at ASR mean and more time discussing if people's ideas are any good.
|
|
|
Post by justthinking on Jul 28, 2011 11:08:01 GMT -5
The explanation above really does not get at the heart of the issue of whether rates of r&rs and rejections have increased under the new ASR editors. All four editors give conflicting suggestions? Could be, but did you really mean four reviewers? Also, how is this different from what happens at AJS? Not sure how, but it will be nice to know.
|
|
|
Post by same on Jul 28, 2011 11:12:07 GMT -5
I very clearly said that the editors have given conflicting advice. Reviewers giving conflicting advice is normal and not a big deal. Editors doing it is an entirely other matter.
As for AJS, I can't speak to anything other than very long review times.
|
|