|
ASR
Jun 28, 2013 10:47:46 GMT -5
Post by not so bad on Jun 28, 2013 10:47:46 GMT -5
I'm only partially through the April issue but I have really enjoyed the health sociology articles. I thought they were excellent.
|
|
|
ASR
Jun 28, 2013 13:49:04 GMT -5
Post by Agreed on Jun 28, 2013 13:49:04 GMT -5
I've thought 2013 has been a pretty good year there. Lots of very interesting articles.
|
|
|
ASR
Jul 5, 2013 4:40:36 GMT -5
Post by isabel on Jul 5, 2013 4:40:36 GMT -5
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. I heard from someone and saw the same after reviewing a paper that they now give "reject and resubmit". So they tell people your paper is rejected but we would like you to resubmit it as an entirely new submission. I think that is kind of annoying as well. They should commit to a R&R or a reject...
|
|
|
ASR
Jul 5, 2013 15:47:06 GMT -5
Post by inside info on Jul 5, 2013 15:47:06 GMT -5
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. I heard from someone and saw the same after reviewing a paper that they now give "reject and resubmit". So they tell people your paper is rejected but we would like you to resubmit it as an entirely new submission. I think that is kind of annoying as well. They should commit to a R&R or a reject... They sometimes give reject & resubmit, but only rarely. Revise and resubmit is still the much more common outcome.
|
|
|
Post by teapottempest on Jul 25, 2013 19:13:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by elguesto on Jul 26, 2013 0:07:32 GMT -5
It is nice to see some senior people recognize some of these issues. I wasted over 2 years trying to get a particular paper published at AJS, having multiple R&Rs and at least 5 different reviewers (with someone new at each R&R - at one point, I had 2 new reviewers and only one repeat). In the end, the paper was rejected. As an ABD at the time, I would have been much better off with a quick rejection and submission to specialist journal (which is where it ultimately ended up) than with the never ending series of "now do X Y and Z to please the new reviewer" memos.
|
|
|
ASR
Jul 26, 2013 8:12:33 GMT -5
Post by vanderbiltASRsucks on Jul 26, 2013 8:12:33 GMT -5
See...senior people do know what is up.
|
|
|
ASR
Jul 26, 2013 11:00:33 GMT -5
Post by ajs horror stories on Jul 26, 2013 11:00:33 GMT -5
elguesto, I feel for you. I have a paper that took me 7(!) years to publish going through AJS and ASR and landing at a top specialty.
My experience is that R&Rs always have at least 1 or 2 new reviewers. It is difficult to get all three reviewers again. Also, editors frequently seek to avoid those with strongly negative opinions at this stage. Imagine one gets an R&R, but the reviewers recommended as follows: (1) R&R; (2) R&R; and (3) reject. Why would the editor send it back to the reviewer who recommended reject? Having been on the other side once, I cannot recall a single instance of sending an R&R back to a reviewer who recommended reject in the first round. It is also a good idea to get a fresh set of eyes at this point too.
|
|
|
ASR
Jul 26, 2013 12:15:59 GMT -5
Post by elguesto on Jul 26, 2013 12:15:59 GMT -5
In my particular case, in the round with 2 new reviewers, the only original reviewer clearly marked my paper as an accept or conditional accept, since he or she claimed to be satisfied with the changes I'd made. But the two new reviewers requested a bunch of new stuff (mostly robustness checks), at least one of which was based on a ridiculous mathematical mistake that the editors didn't catch (think basic addition and subtraction and interpretation of coefficients). I understand needing new reviewers. But in my case they should have either rejected it (if it was an instance like you mention, of the editors replacing 2 strongly negative opinions) or make the new reviewers stick to the original set of feedback, and not demand any new changes (except for glaring issues). In my case, I was left having to do n-th robustness check with a n-th version of a variable because the reviewers either didn't see or didn't care about all the previous robustness checks.
In hindsight, I should have pulled the paper then and there. But since none of the requests by the new reviewers seemed too demanding, I thought that maybe if I just did it, I'd have an acceptance in less time than it would have taken for a new review elsewhere. Of course, this only led to another R&R and ultimate rejection.
|
|
|
ASR
Jul 30, 2013 13:14:24 GMT -5
Post by yuck on Jul 30, 2013 13:14:24 GMT -5
This discussion scares me. I have a paper at ASR now on its second resubmission (third submission). After the initial R&R, the paper was sent to 3 entirely new reviewers. The first two reviewers agreed that the paper was great and that I had met the demands of the original R&R decision. However, the third reviewer held strong negative opinions about the work and concluded that the paper was without merit and altogether ill-conceived. This led to the second R&R. Now that the third edition of the paper is under review, I feel very strongly that if I receive similar feedback, I will just take the paper to a top specialty journal and try my luck. What is the use of R&R if you send the paper to a completely new set of reviewers each time? Is that not the same as taking feedback from colleagues and submitting the paper to a new journal?
|
|
|
ASR
Dec 11, 2013 12:20:17 GMT -5
Post by length on Dec 11, 2013 12:20:17 GMT -5
Anyone have experience with ASR enforcing their length requirements on first submissions?
|
|
|
ASR
Dec 11, 2013 20:27:46 GMT -5
Post by Words on Dec 11, 2013 20:27:46 GMT -5
Anyone have experience with ASR enforcing their length requirements on first submissions? As in, the 15,000 word limit?
|
|
|
ASR
Dec 11, 2013 22:53:48 GMT -5
Post by Better Late Than on Dec 11, 2013 22:53:48 GMT -5
elguesto, I feel for you. I have a paper that took me 7(!) years to publish going through AJS and ASR and landing at a top specialty. My experience is that R&Rs always have at least 1 or 2 new reviewers. It is difficult to get all three reviewers again. Also, editors frequently seek to avoid those with strongly negative opinions at this stage. Imagine one gets an R&R, but the reviewers recommended as follows: (1) R&R; (2) R&R; and (3) reject. W hy would the editor send it back to the reviewer who recommended reject? Having been on the other side once, I cannot recall a single instance of sending an R&R back to a reviewer who recommended reject in the first round. It is also a good idea to get a fresh set of eyes at this point too. Why? Because if the two R&R people say publish the second version, and the original reject says reject, it just leaves the editor to make a decision--you know, to EDIT (as opposed to simply count reviewer thumb ups and thumb downs). However, if the two R&R people say publish the revision, and original reject softens, now you have some good information that the paper is publishable. If you get another reviewer, for all the editor knows the new reviewer would've said publish the original. And this is why the publication process is absolutely unnecessarily frustrating for authors, reviewers, and editors. Getting another reviewer presupposes a degree of disciplinary consensus that just does not exist. And this is why it leads to nothing but trouble.
|
|
|
ASR
Dec 12, 2013 12:14:28 GMT -5
Post by verbose? on Dec 12, 2013 12:14:28 GMT -5
Anyone have experience with ASR enforcing their length requirements on first submissions? As in, the 15,000 word limit? Yes, I am at approx 15,500
|
|
|
ASR
Dec 12, 2013 12:26:19 GMT -5
Post by words on Dec 12, 2013 12:26:19 GMT -5
As in, the 15,000 word limit? Yes, I am at approx 15,500 yes, that seems like something they'd enforce. 15,500 is insanely long. I have heard them requiring under 12,000, even though the website says 15,000. Esp. if you're a grad student. Not knowing the circumstances, you should either reduce to at least 13,000, or consider breaking it up into two papers.
|
|