|
Post by BeenThere on Sept 7, 2012 14:41:15 GMT -5
Being a reviewer is ominous too. They state that they can accept fewer than 10% of articles, and even good articles may be rejected because of this. As such, hope that reviewers don't raise even fixable issues...
|
|
|
Post by Nene on Oct 4, 2012 20:02:26 GMT -5
Before I get accused of being a troll (sheesh!), let me disclose that I always vote Democrat, am pro-gay rights, and have no opinion or knowledge of Regnerus's research.
But I see an awful lot of biased garbage in sociology journals. Regnerus only got called out because his politics on the issue at hand counter the feelings of most sociologists. We are a waaaay left of center bunch. We only attack our own when they get politically out of line.
And yet Regnerus is a tenured R1 professor. What does that tell us about merit in hiring? Since this is a jobs board, I conclude by pointing once again to the extreme randomness governing who makes a career and who doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Finally on Dec 4, 2012 15:42:48 GMT -5
Before I get accused of being a troll (sheesh!), let me disclose that I always vote Democrat, am pro-gay rights, and have no opinion or knowledge of Regnerus's research. But I see an awful lot of biased garbage in sociology journals. Regnerus only got called out because his politics on the issue at hand counter the feelings of most sociologists. We are a waaaay left of center bunch. We only attack our own when they get politically out of line. And yet Regnerus is a tenured R1 professor. What does that tell us about merit in hiring? Since this is a jobs board, I conclude by pointing once again to the extreme randomness governing who makes a career and who doesn't. Thank you and thank you.
|
|
|
Post by onthetopic on Dec 4, 2012 18:33:30 GMT -5
Being a reviewer is ominous too. They state that they can accept fewer than 10% of articles, and even good articles may be rejected because of this. As such, hope that reviewers don't raise even fixable issues... Since this thread has been resurrected, I wanted to say something about this post. Really? First of all, the email that goes out to reviewers says 15-20%. Second, are you serious about the "hope that reviewers don't raise even fixable issues" bit? Even the best articles undergo some revisions, right? Anyway, I've been a reviewer for SSR, and a good paper that I wasn't completely sold on was eventually accepted after some nice revisions and a solid response memo to reviewers. I'm now hoping that my resubmission will be accepted after some "fixable issues" were raised and addressed.
|
|
|
Post by SSRreviewer on Dec 8, 2012 16:25:10 GMT -5
To the above poster, I just received a MS from SSR to review. The email indicated a less than 10% acceptance rate, as mentioned earlier. There was also a line in there about having to reject good articles due to lack of space.
|
|
|
Post by onthetopic on Dec 8, 2012 16:47:31 GMT -5
Interesting. When I got asked in May to review a manuscript, this was the text (see below). Has it changed since then?
Please be aware that Social Science Research receives many more papers each year than we can plausibly publish. New submissions now run in excess of 300 per year, not including revisions of papers submitted in previous years, and from these, we are only able to publish about fifty or sixty. The result is that a great many quality papers that deserve publication somewhere must, nonetheless, be rejected. So I am less interested in your assessment of whether this paper, either in its current form or suitably revised, deserves to be published; I am more interested in knowing if it is a high-quality piece with a large potential impact on the field, the sort of paper that is nearly certain to be cited by other scholars working in the area. It is not enough to be "above the bar." The paper needs to be in the upper 15-20%. Please keep these realities in view in the course of your assessment.
Wow, 10 percent. And it's not even considered in the top tier, right?
|
|
|
Post by reader on Jan 27, 2013 18:42:56 GMT -5
I recently read the editor's response and Sherkat's audit that both appeared in the November issue. Very interesting stuff. Made me feel for the editor. I'm curious to hear folks' thoughts on this now that those responses have come out, and the dust has settled somewhat. What are the long-term consequences for all the players involved? What about the journal itself?
|
|
|
Post by samereader on Mar 1, 2013 12:11:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mytake on Mar 1, 2013 17:22:44 GMT -5
I think SSR will be fine.
No clue on the implications for Regnerus, though.
|
|
|
Post by samereader on Mar 1, 2013 17:27:31 GMT -5
I should correct my earlier post. It wasn't a mention, it was a four or five page long smackdown. Will Scalia and Roberts soon be reading about our own discipline's recent controversy?
|
|
|
Post by top100program on Mar 2, 2013 21:09:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hahaha on Mar 2, 2013 23:22:12 GMT -5
(┛◉Д◉)┛ Love their bigoted brief! 7 fringe "social scientists", most of which are sheltered at bogus conservative religious institutions. By their logic we should just go ahead and ban single parenting as well. Their critiques of existing studies are at most laughable. As if their findings are any more solid. Hell, they could follow some of their own methodological criticisms.....::cliche warning:: Everytime you point a finger, there's always 3 fingers pointing back at you. ಠ_ಠ
|
|
|
Post by anonyms on Jun 3, 2013 14:29:55 GMT -5
Reading that they only want to include high impact articles makes me feel better about my recent reject, but I'm still somewhat angry about it. I waited 6 months for maybe a page of reviews (from 3 reviewers) in total, without a single useful comment for revision- basically all it said was "this isn't of wide interest to people outside of *subfield*" I'm now revising it to send to a specialty journal.
I'm not so mad about the rejection itself, but in the past while getting rejected by top journals I've always gotten useful reviews that have helped me revise it to resubmit it somewhere else (and they have almost always gotten an R and R the second journal around). This time I just feel like I wasted 6 months and got absolutely nothing out of it. I think there was maybe one comment in there that said something like "why do you only look at heterosexuals (it was a sexuality paper) so now I'm adding a comparison of non heteros, but seriously, I lost 6 months for that? I'm on the freaking tenure track here! I don't have time for this bullshit!
|
|