|
ASR
Dec 12, 2013 15:19:17 GMT -5
Post by suggested on Dec 12, 2013 15:19:17 GMT -5
I once submitted (with the current editors) a 17,500 and they suggested that I cut it before they sent it out for review, in at least 1000 words. I cut it to just above 16,000 and they reviewed it. It was rejected, but I think the rejection was right for reasons other than the length. However, the version I sent elsewhere afterwards I changed eliminated one of the three methods to make about 12,500). It did make sense to cut the paper as well. Maybe that would apply to yours too, although I remember seeing some influential AJS papers close to 18,000 words.
|
|
|
ASR
Dec 14, 2013 12:57:01 GMT -5
Post by Wow. on Dec 14, 2013 12:57:01 GMT -5
I once submitted (with the current editors) a 17,500 and they suggested that I cut it before they sent it out for review, in at least 1000 words. I cut it to just above 16,000 and they reviewed it. God damn that's a lot of words.
|
|
|
ASR
Dec 15, 2013 4:12:17 GMT -5
Post by direction matters on Dec 15, 2013 4:12:17 GMT -5
I foolishly got trapped in the ASR tunnel for over two years. Got a "reject and resubmit," then two R&R's. Each time sent to different reviewers. The most frustrating part was the lack of editorial direction. I got wildly varying comments, with little sense form the editors as to what I should prioritize. The fourth version, which was finally rejected, was a mess, far worse than the original submission I had made. There had been too many cooks in the kitchen (about 10 to my memory) whom I had tried respond to, and the article's message had got lost along the way.
The blind review process can work very well, but only if the journal has strong editorial leadership. This means finding suitable reviewers (and I recognize that is not easy), and also deciding that sometimes reviewers' comments aren't on point. On the one hand, the editorial board had done a lot of work by soliciting so many reviewers, and that was impressive. But on the other hand, an editorial board should be more than a body that solicits reviews. It should exercise judgment and formulate a point of view. In my recent ASR experience this was lacking.
That's not to say it was all a waste. There was one review in particular which was helpful, and that helped me shape changes I then made on the first version I went back to. I sent that version to a more specialist and still highly regarded journal, got a quick R&R with tough but focused feedback, and the article will see the light of day in a few months.
|
|
direction matters adds
Guest
|
ASR
Dec 15, 2013 4:31:59 GMT -5
Post by direction matters adds on Dec 15, 2013 4:31:59 GMT -5
Forgot to mention above that an earlier rejection would have been good. Also the sign of a strong editorial stance.
|
|
To 'direction matters'
Guest
|
ASR
Dec 15, 2013 11:23:17 GMT -5
Post by To 'direction matters' on Dec 15, 2013 11:23:17 GMT -5
Congratulations on your eventual acceptance at a competently-run journal!
I haven't yet done an ASR/AJS submission, and these stories just fill me with terror.
|
|