|
ASR
May 21, 2013 13:42:51 GMT -5
Post by yup on May 21, 2013 13:42:51 GMT -5
People are always dissatisfied with the editorship of ASR, which is an interesting sociological issue itself (when compared to in-house journals like AJS or SF)--perhaps as an association journal we all feel like we "own" it more.
But, yes, there are a lot of complaints about how it's being run. And some of the recent articles do seem to be less strong than usual.
I submitted and got rejected, but the editor's letter had some rather disturbing comments with an ethno-centric undertone. And they clearly followed the recommendations of a reviewer who had trouble reading and missed the point entirely. Of course, clarity is on the author, but vetting the reviews properly is on the editor.
|
|
|
ASR
May 21, 2013 15:12:39 GMT -5
Post by PlayerHater on May 21, 2013 15:12:39 GMT -5
I've read the articles. Regardless of my opinion of them, or of the state of the discipline, organizationally or otherwise, I find many of these complaints in poor taste because they only insult everyone who has published in ASR recently. Did all of your articles get rejected or something? Or have you submitted nothing?
We all know who the authors are, so who are these "big names in the field" that keep complaining? and who are you?
|
|
|
ASR
May 28, 2013 13:35:11 GMT -5
Post by Uh on May 28, 2013 13:35:11 GMT -5
You do know what an anonymous online forum is for, right?
|
|
|
ASR
May 28, 2013 14:43:10 GMT -5
Post by Concur on May 28, 2013 14:43:10 GMT -5
I agree that- on average- the quality of articles has fallen of over the past few years. Obviously there is still lots of good stuff that comes out of the journal, but in the last two years in particular I have found myself wondering how certain research was ever given the green light. My sense is that this is ultimately an issue of allowing people to recommend reviewers or using graduate students as reviewers- but I have to confess I have only dealt with the previous editors and not those at Vandy.
You can call me a hater and chalk this up to sour grapes if you want, but it sounds like several people share my sentiments.
I would be happy to name to the authors if you want, but my posts will only get deleted.
|
|
|
ASR
May 28, 2013 22:05:56 GMT -5
Post by small point on May 28, 2013 22:05:56 GMT -5
^ uh, you do know that AJS totally uses grad students as reviewers, right? There is, however, a careful matching process.
|
|
|
ASR
May 29, 2013 3:21:40 GMT -5
Post by strange on May 29, 2013 3:21:40 GMT -5
All journals use grad student reviewers. Do the math. Its very strange that this keeps getting brought up as a critique on this board. I'm not a huge fan of ASR myself, but still.
|
|
|
ASR
May 29, 2013 11:54:55 GMT -5
Post by qwe on May 29, 2013 11:54:55 GMT -5
I think most generalist sociology journals have done a very poor job of adapting to the increasing specialization within sociology. This is specially an issue with ASR and SF, since they have stricter page limits that prevent anyone from being able to expand on any significant controversies.
At least my experience, and the experience of those I know, is that in these generalist journals it ends up being all about the luck of the draw with reviewers. If you do, say. world systems, you can have a relatively easy time getting published if you end up with 3 world system scholars. It is up to the editor to make sure that there is intellectual diversity among the reviewers, but that is precisely where I see a lot of the issues in generalist journals.
|
|
|
ASR
May 29, 2013 22:12:46 GMT -5
Post by 3 reviewers on May 29, 2013 22:12:46 GMT -5
I don't have broad assessments about the quality of ASR, but it is never easy to get published in this outlet(regardless of sub-field). There are always more than three reviewers and the reviewers often take great pride in telling authors that they have overlooked the most recent-cutting edge methodology.
|
|
|
ASR
May 30, 2013 0:02:14 GMT -5
Post by hm on May 30, 2013 0:02:14 GMT -5
^^ Well, if you do want to cry about your new neuro-Foucauldian-cities work not getting recognized at the generalist journals, I do acknowledge that it must be frustrating, but I also have to say tough luck dude. I mean, we do have some theories of social movements and arts to explain why "new specialties" have a hard time breaking ground.
If it is any consolation, I'm sure the neo-institutionalists had many of the same gripes back in the day.
But publishing new and specialist research is not really the job of a generalist journal, in my opinion. If you can't make it play in Peoria, as they say, then I'm not sure your work belongs in a generalist journal.
As for luck of the draw on reviewers -- that's just life as an academic!
|
|
|
ASR
May 30, 2013 9:27:14 GMT -5
Post by faculty on May 30, 2013 9:27:14 GMT -5
As someone who has been in this business for a little while, let me try to bring some wisdom to this discussion:
1) There has never been an ASR editor who everyone likes. This comes with the job. If you reject 90% of articles, you make a lot of enemies;
2) ASA does not renew the tenure of the ASR editors, it is up to a vote by council. ASA has very little if anything to do with it- this suggests many people are in fact quite happy with the editors;
3) Multiple rounds of review and a large number of reviewers can be frustrating, but it can also often work in your favor. Having 2- and only 2- bad reviewers is worse than having 3 reviewers who get your argument and 2 that do not;
4) If you feel misunderstood by the editors or the reviewers, please consider the possibility that it might suggest you struggle to frame your work accurately, or that you are not writing clearly. Reviewers and editors are all very busy, and if your point does not come across effectively within the title and abstract (or introduction), your paper will probably not be sent to the right reviewers.
|
|
|
ASR
May 30, 2013 17:01:41 GMT -5
Post by anonnn on May 30, 2013 17:01:41 GMT -5
Must....resist....urge....to...be....snarky...to....above....poster. Seriously though: "let me bring a little bit of wisdom to this discussion." You should try talking to a non-captive audience from time to time.
|
|
|
ASR
May 30, 2013 23:30:55 GMT -5
Post by yeppers on May 30, 2013 23:30:55 GMT -5
I thought it was good advice, sounding like it was based in experience.
|
|
|
ASR
May 31, 2013 8:39:50 GMT -5
Post by asr on May 31, 2013 8:39:50 GMT -5
Yeah, "faculty" is terribly misguided on points 2 and 4.
For one thing, most of the time these journals are picking reviewers on the basis of subject and not method. This is one of the biggest problems with our journals right now. I can't tell you how many reviews I've gotten back (from ASR and others) that have a reviewer saying something to the tune of "I don't use this method and have barely any knowledge of it at all, but I'm confident you're doing it wrong." Any editor worth a shit would take this with a grain of salt and try to get a review from someone who knows the method. My dealings with AJS suggest they understand this way better than ASR and SF.
|
|
|
ASR
May 31, 2013 10:21:32 GMT -5
Post by RRRRRRRR on May 31, 2013 10:21:32 GMT -5
I am 9 years post PHD and have published nearly 30 papers including at ASR. So I've been to the rodeo a few times. IMHO the biggest problem with the current editors is that they give entirely way too many R&R's to papers that they have no intention of ever publishing. They give out way more R&R than the journal can really have any chance at publishing. Then they extend the problem with multiple R&R that most ultimately still lead to rejections. They have decided to be very risk averse in rejections (i.e. giving a whole lot of R&R's and seeing what cream rises to the top after 2-4 review rounds). It's like they editors want to give a "participant" trophy to everyone who submits so as not to make people feel bad with rejections too soon An R&R should be used sparingly IMO for those papers that show substantial promise and that given revisions have a high likelihood of acceptance. Right now you could probably wipe your ass on a sheet of paper and it would get and R&R from ASR. Either the editors can't agree after a first review and so they punt and give and R&R instead of making a tough choice or they are doing a poor job of choosing reviewers for papers. Both are a failure of leadership. I had a paper that got 2 R&R's under the current editors which was ultimately rejected. Rejection I can handle. What bugs me is that the reason for the rejection was purely interest/fit with journal which was not going to change from iteration to iteration and was apparent from day 1. The paper should have been rejected after the first review. Instead I was "lead on" by the reviewers and wasted nearly 2 years. I have seen the same thing happen as an ASR reviewer multiple times. I for one will not be sending anything there for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
ASR
May 31, 2013 11:37:22 GMT -5
Post by the word on May 31, 2013 11:37:22 GMT -5
I am 9 years post PHD and have published nearly 30 papers including at ASR. So I've been to the rodeo a few times. IMHO the biggest problem with the current editors is that they give entirely way too many R&R's to papers that they have no intention of ever publishing. They give out way more R&R than the journal can really have any chance at publishing. Then they extend the problem with multiple R&R that most ultimately still lead to rejections. They have decided to be very risk averse in rejections (i.e. giving a whole lot of R&R's and seeing what cream rises to the top after 2-4 review rounds). It's like they editors want to give a "participant" trophy to everyone who submits so as not to make people feel bad with rejections too soon An R&R should be used sparingly IMO for those papers that show substantial promise and that given revisions have a high likelihood of acceptance. Right now you could probably wipe your ass on a sheet of paper and it would get and R&R from ASR. Either the editors can't agree after a first review and so they punt and give and R&R instead of making a tough choice or they are doing a poor job of choosing reviewers for papers. Both are a failure of leadership. I had a paper that got 2 R&R's under the current editors which was ultimately rejected. Rejection I can handle. What bugs me is that the reason for the rejection was purely interest/fit with journal which was not going to change from iteration to iteration and was apparent from day 1. The paper should have been rejected after the first review. Instead I was "lead on" by the reviewers and wasted nearly 2 years. I have seen the same thing happen as an ASR reviewer multiple times. I for one will not be sending anything there for the foreseeable future. The word from a lot of people who have submitted and reviewed in the last 18 months or so is that they recognized this problem and shifted to the opposite direction. R&Rs are harder to come by now because they've got too many backlogged from the first few years.
|
|