|
Post by guest2 on Aug 2, 2011 11:00:00 GMT -5
Have to agree with guest. Doing the work is not actually the hard part of getting published. The hard part is getting the right data and asking the right question.
|
|
yep
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by yep on Aug 2, 2011 14:20:15 GMT -5
^ Ha, and seeing publications is how search committees know that applicants can also do the former. The job requires the balance of both good ideas and grinding it out to get published.
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on Aug 2, 2011 15:49:58 GMT -5
Good search committees at good programs will actually read your articles and won't assume that because it's in a "top" journal it's actually good. Programs that want good scholars, read the scholarship!" Well that may be the case in an ideal world; but certainly it is not the case in this one. When committees face 200+ applications, they need some discriminating criteria, which (correct me if I'm wrong), typically are 1) whether they know the candidate 2) the University where the candidate did the PhD and 3) if the candidate has published in top journals of the subfield specified by the position. Once they have applied those filters, and they have boiled it down to a 20 or so race, then maybe (only maybe), they start reading the scholarship. Although I'm pretty sure that in most cases the reading only starts in earnest with the candidates shortlisted for the interview. Sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by chirpaderp on Aug 2, 2011 18:10:36 GMT -5
Coming in late to this discussion, but I'd like to clarify what we mean by 'top tier' - do you mean something different from Tier 1?
|
|
yep
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by yep on Aug 3, 2011 8:31:15 GMT -5
Indeed - in the face of excess applications, organizations can be as picky as they like. Lauren Rivera at Northwestern (business school) found some of the same things with hiring at top law and consulting firms.
Now I assume that universities aren't using automated resume scanners for keywords the way normal large companies do, but I am sure that plenty of good people still get skipped over in that first pass if they don't have the right markers in the letter and on the CV.
|
|
|
Post by anon99999 on Aug 5, 2011 18:16:24 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. This person was getting differentiated editorial feedback from more than one editor? I just went through the process w/ ASR and it was the standard editorial letter synthesis w/ three reviewer letters (for R&R), then editorial synthesis letter with two of the three reviewers(for conditional accept). I'm not doubting you, just curious about how the process worked.
|
|