|
|
Post by top100program on Jul 11, 2012 19:34:48 GMT -5
Anyone mind sharing their experiences submitting here? Particularly, I'm wondering how detailed folks' methods sections had to be...
|
|
|
|
Post by prezshap on Jul 11, 2012 20:12:23 GMT -5
I would say your methods section needs to be in excellent shape. I submitted a paper roughly a year ago to it and got desk rejected. Looking back on the experience the methods section was pretty shabby. I did receive excellent advice from the editor, and it is now at another journal.
|
|
|
|
Post by not another one on Jul 11, 2012 21:00:56 GMT -5
Just received a rejection last week on a R & R. I was worried about my methods section (specifically concerned that they wouldn't like that my initial observations of the group was not part of research, only later did I do formal research), but none of the reviewers were concerned about methods at all. I'm reasonably confident with my write up of my methods section, but wouldn't have described them as excellent.
for what its worth. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by one more on Jul 12, 2012 1:03:50 GMT -5
I published a piece in this journal about two years ago and the reviewers definitely pushed me to clarify my methods. It can be tougher to elaborate on methods when you do qualitative work, but just be sure to mention how you obtained access to your site, how you gathered research, who you talked to and for how long, whether you took fieldnotes and/or tape-recorded interviews, and how you analyzed your data (e.g., using Atlas.ti).
That said, the reviewers were far more concerned with my argument than anything. My feeling is that if they are really interested in your ideas, they will give you a chance to fix everything during the revision.
|
|
|
|
Post by myexp on Jul 12, 2012 10:52:33 GMT -5
I have submitted to qual soc twice. both times i got helpful feedback from the reviewers, and both times the turnaround time was speedy. i'll definitely be submitting again in the future.
|
|
