request to review

[Mary321]

Today, I received a request to review a manuscript for a journal that rejected my article last summer. I am not published in that journal at all.

Is it commonplace for editors to solicit reviewers that don't have work in their journal? Could this work against me on my vitae? For example, if search committees can see in my list of pubs that I am not published in this journal, yet I review for them, does this indicate I submitted there but my work was rejected? Does this do more harm than good? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[doesn't matter]

If you look at people CVs you will find that many have reviewed for AJS and ASR yet never published in them. No one cares where you have reviewed articles (if anyone very actually looks that deep in your CV).

I'm assuming you are early along in your career (if not pardon the assumption). If this is the case I think the more important question should be do I have time to devote to this? If you aren't in or are just starting a TT position you should not be wasting time on reviewing others work, but rather getting your own published.

[leave academia]

Jan 21, 2014 22:09:23 GMT -5 doesn't matter said:

 If you aren't in or are just starting a TT position you should not be wasting time on reviewing others work, but rather getting your own published.

That's total fucking bullshit.  You're one reason why it takes so long to get stuff reviewed.  Thanks, asshole.

[middleground]

Jan 22, 2014 9:47:28 GMT -5 leave academia said:

Jan 21, 2014 22:09:23 GMT -5 doesn't matter said:

 If you aren't in or are just starting a TT position you should not be wasting time on reviewing others work, but rather getting your own published.

That's total fucking bullshit.  You're one reason why it takes so long to get stuff reviewed.  Thanks, asshole.

I'm inclined to agree with these last poster, but I think there's some middle ground here. I think early-career scholars, especially during the first few years of a TT position, need to be choosy when it comes to requests to review. You don't have to say yes to everything. It can start to get overwhelming. But if you're submitting, you have a responsibility to review from time to time.

[notexactly]

Jan 22, 2014 9:47:28 GMT -5 leave academia said:

Jan 21, 2014 22:09:23 GMT -5 doesn't matter said:

 If you aren't in or are just starting a TT position you should not be wasting time on reviewing others work, but rather getting your own published.

That's total fucking bullshit.  You're one reason why it takes so long to get stuff reviewed.  Thanks, asshole.

I agree with middleground's point. Reviewing is an important component of service but until one gets tenure one should be wary of over extending themselves.

If we want to talk about why getting stuff reviewed takes so long it probably has more to do with the massive amount articles that get sent out that are nowhere near publishable (I've reviewed over 15 pieces now and only one was not rejected outright- and I wouldn't consider myself to have particularly exacting standards- I now understand why even mediocre journals only accept about 10% of submissions).

Also- and this is based purely on personal experience- but three reviews I've done were sent to me because one of my advisors was 'too busy' (read lazy) and gave my name as an alternate reviewer. I found this out after the fact and was told they thought it would be good experience for me. Looking back on it this is 'total fucking bullshit' (as leave academia so eloquently put it ) as in the end tenured faculty are both more qualified as reviewers and their time is less precious from a careerist standpoint at least.

Finally to 'leave academia' I know its frustrating to have to wait so long to hear your work was been rejected but you could be a little less intemperate.  

 

[mad]

Jan 22, 2014 9:47:28 GMT -5 leave academia said:

Jan 21, 2014 22:09:23 GMT -5 doesn't matter said:

 If you aren't in or are just starting a TT position you should not be wasting time on reviewing others work, but rather getting your own published.

That's total fucking bullshit.  You're one reason why it takes so long to get stuff reviewed.  Thanks, asshole.

u mad bro??

[par for the course]

Yes it is commonplace.
While there is no quid pro quo for every paper you submit to a journal you should expect to do 2 reviews. More if it is accepted.
Your job as a reviewer is service to the discipline and at the end of the day is independent of your submission.
However by submitting to a journal you have instantly identified yourself as a potential reviewer to the editor. Even if rejected if the paper was competently executed the editor can also be assured that you will provide a careful review.

You should absolutely do the review if it is reasonably in your area of expertise.
However, as a junior person you should be protective of your time. As a grad student I wouldn't do more than a couple a year. as a post doc or new AP don;t do more than 6-7 a year. I've been out a decade and have published in a wide array of discipline and interdisciplinary journals so I have fortunately/unfortunately achieved a stature where I get asked on a weekly basis many of which I have never submitted to. As a rule I limit myself to the equivalent of 1-2 a month.

[maybe I'm weird]

I'm actually sad no one has ever asked me to review, despite having multiple publications and papers under review.

[your time will come]

I don't think you're weird. I think it's really valuable to see the review process from multiple angles. I know I was curious and eager to receive a request after I started publishing. But don't worry- your time will come! Editors who have published your work will remember you when the right submission comes along, and you'll receive more requests over time, as more people read your existing publications.

Also, as one of the posters above suggested, a lot of junior scholars start reviewing when their advisors recommend them to editors. I don't think it's right for an advisor to do this too many times or in an exploitative way (e.g., "I owe this editor a favor, so you MUST do this for me"). But linking you in with one or two relevant editors and perhaps even guiding you through the review process the first time is in some sense part of their job- a component of the professional socialization they ought to provide. So, especially if you are still in grad school, you might mention to your advisor that you're interested in reviewing. I'm sure s/he would be glad to direct a request or two your way! And after you've reviewed once or twice, the requests seem to keep coming...

[Moreover]

One of the most valuable aspects of reviewing is getting to see what publishable and unpublishable papers look like. Seeing articles go from submission to R&R to published (or rejected) gives young faculty invaluable insight into how to get published. I'm still fairly early in my career but I've reviewed for a lot of journals and even some books for academic presses. Doing so has been more valuable to me in terms of learning how to write publishable material than anything I ever learned in graduate school. I highly recommend reviewing whenever possible. As an up and coming scholar you are unlikely to be asked more than a few times a year, if that. And yes, it's a service to the profession and the right thing to do.

[Yes, do reviews]

It was my understanding that submitting to a journal that uses manuscript central means that you get into their database. So it is probably not a coincidence that you are now being asked to review, because if you filled out the keywords and info they can use these to find you.

While you might want to decline out of spite, it is a better idea to be a good citizen and do the review. You will hopefully learn from the process, especially if you also get the other reviewer letters once a decision has been made. (AJS and many other good journals do this.)

I have to say, I have learned a lot from reviewing, particularly when I see the final decision. When submitting for a journal, it is also helpful to ask around to see if anyone you know has submitted there. Whether rejected or accepted, I find that reading other people's review comments to be helpful in framing my arguments for that journal.

[10 years]

I have 20 or so pubs in sociology, so I review about 5 articles for each of my pubs. It is important to be a good citizen, but for junior people being choosy is good. Review for top generalist journals and those in your subareas. People talk to each other, you know. I suggest turning down nonsociological outlets.

[Mary 321]

OP here. Thanks to everyone for their smart advice. I am indeed an early career sociologist, and I (and hopefully others) have benefited greatly from this thread. 

[anony]

Jan 22, 2014 21:06:56 GMT -5 par for the course said:

Yes it is commonplace.
While there is no quid pro quo for every paper you submit to a journal you should expect to do 2 reviews. More if it is accepted.
Your job as a reviewer is service to the discipline and at the end of the day is independent of your submission.
However by submitting to a journal you have instantly identified yourself as a potential reviewer to the editor. Even if rejected if the paper was competently executed the editor can also be assured that you will provide a careful review.

You should absolutely do the review if it is reasonably in your area of expertise.
However, as a junior person you should be protective of your time. As a grad student I wouldn't do more than a couple a year. as a post doc or new AP don;t do more than 6-7 a year. I've been out a decade and have published in a wide array of discipline and interdisciplinary journals so I have fortunately/unfortunately achieved a stature where I get asked on a weekly basis many of which I have never submitted to. As a rule I limit myself to the equivalent of 1-2 a month.

6-7 a year?  1-2 a month?  I think that depends highly at the kind of institution where you work.  I work at a SLAC with very heavy teaching and service responsibilities and I don't have anywhere near the time for 6-7 a year.  I'm a pretty well published researcher (advanced Assistant Prof) but I turn down several reviews because there's just no time for it.  Plus, I work at an institution that views "service" very narrowly as only service to the institution.  They really couldn't care less about service to the profession.  It's unfortunate, because I'd like to do more reviews, but it's nearly impossible with existing commitments.

I think my point is that the maximum number of reviews you should do as an Assistant Professor has a lot to do with the expectations placed upon you at your institution.  Don't let posters on this board tell you how many you should be doing.

[really?]

"I don't have anywhere near the time for 6-7 a year."

You don't have the time for half a day, once every two months? That's outrageous.