|
Post by yup on Jan 24, 2014 12:08:14 GMT -5
"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. Agreed, and honestly half a day is what it takes to give a thorough, detailed review. About 50% of reviews (in my experience) seem to be completed in about an hour. As a result they are not terribly helpful, but such is life.
|
|
|
Post by this thread on Jan 24, 2014 13:22:04 GMT -5
This thread just confirms what I already expected. A number of our peers are selfish assholes.
|
|
|
Post by really?? on Jan 24, 2014 13:35:16 GMT -5
To the above poster I guess I would qualify as a selfish asshole in your opinion.
I've reviewed four pieces in the past year and have turned down three (one because I didn't make any sense as a reviewer and the other two because I frankly just didn't have time when I was asked to review).
I'm a VAP teaching a 3-3 load (no TAs to assist with grading etc) and am on the market full time. From my perspective until I'm in a TT position I don't owe the profession anything (as I have yet to permanently enter academia). You can call this selfish and outrageous all you want but at the end of the day my success is what's most important.
Once I'm in a position and especially once I've secured tenure I'll definitely be more generous in terms of reviewing but I find it a little off-putting to be labeled a lazy asshole.
|
|
|
Post by anony on Jan 24, 2014 14:15:32 GMT -5
Ditto-- In grad school I had a lot of time for reviewing, but that time shriveled up with a 3-4 teaching load and major roles on large college-level committees (which I'm forced into, more or less). Where does one find the time with 18 hours a week of meetings, 10 hours of teaching, 6 office-hours, probably 4 hours of behind-the-secnes committee/admin work, advising undergrad theses (several at the same time), grading hundreds of pages of student work, and trying to have a life. Even finding time for my own research is difficult. That doesn't mean I'm a selfish asshole. What it means is that I work at an institution that doesn't value or reward that sort of work, and although I see the importance in it, I'm already working a 60-hour week. So, rather than do 6-10 half-assed reviews a year, I do 2 or 3 more thorough reviews.
My point wasn't "Oh, poor me," but rather to interrogate the expectation that any faculty member should be able to handle a certain number of reviews. It's heavily institution-dependent.
And, to answer the question above ("You don't have half a day every couple months?"): No, I don't. My own research is done in 15-minute bursts here and there. There's never half a day for anything. Welcome to the life of a SLAC faculty member. Until today, I hadn't even checked this site in months because I haven't had time. I'm a bit sorry that I did.
|
|
|
Post by websters on Jan 25, 2014 6:04:36 GMT -5
You can call this selfish and outrageous all you want but at the end of the day my success is what's most important. I think most people would agree that this is pretty much the definition of selfishness. Not saying that's good, bad, or "outrageous" but you shouldn't be surprised or offended if people consider your attitude to be a selfish one.
|
|
|
Post by kinda on Jan 25, 2014 14:26:43 GMT -5
I think you are taking the entirety of the statement slightly out of context. This is certainly a self-centered and ego-centric position but I wouldn't characterize it as selfish per se. There is an an important difference between 'I won't review because its distracting and doesn't benefit me directly' and 'there is a limit to the time and energy I can invest in reviewing others work'.
I think the broader point being made was that it is a bit out of line to demonize people as assholes (all the while ignoring important institutional constraints) because they don't review 10+ articles per year etc.
|
|
|
Post by Ditto on Jan 26, 2014 0:31:08 GMT -5
Moreover, the comment "my success is what's most important" is and should be true for all of us. Okay, perhaps not over "world peace" or a cure for cancer or something. But I know for me, my anxiety over my career (getting a job, getting tenure) is existential anxiety about being able to feed, clothe, and shelter myself and my future children. No one else is going to look out for that but me. Yes, we do need to all contribute to the discipline because we can't be successful on our own. And we've gotten where we are because other people have taken the time to help us by mentoring, supporting, training us and so on. So we should do those things for others also. But as the above poster points out, we all have different amounts of that we can do at any given time given the other demands we face at any given time. Needing to prioritize one's own scholarship at important moments is completely appropriate. Because it is "important" to contribute to the discipline and our peers and the next generation. But it is in fact "most important" that we have a career with which to do that to begin with. Some degree of "selfishness" is necessary. That said, ditto to those who have pointed out that a reasonable amount of reviewing early in ones career is a good learning experience with the potential to help strengthen one's own scholarship that will hopefully lead to more individual success as well.
|
|
|
Post by wrong perspective on Jan 26, 2014 10:44:25 GMT -5
You all make great points, but the biggest point is that if everyone adopted the same attitude and never reviewed papers or reviewed less than what they submitted, we wouldn't have journals. It's clearly a free-rider problem. You should review 1 for 1 at minimum.
|
|
You're doing it all wrong
Guest
|
Post by You're doing it all wrong on Jan 26, 2014 13:44:14 GMT -5
Ditto-- In grad school I had a lot of time for reviewing, but that time shriveled up with a 3-4 teaching load and major roles on large college-level committees (which I'm forced into, more or less). Where does one find the time with 18 hours a week of meetings, 10 hours of teaching, 6 office-hours, probably 4 hours of behind-the-secnes committee/admin work, advising undergrad theses (several at the same time), grading hundreds of pages of student work, and trying to have a life. Even finding time for my own research is difficult. That doesn't mean I'm a selfish asshole. What it means is that I work at an institution that doesn't value or reward that sort of work, and although I see the importance in it, I'm already working a 60-hour week. So, rather than do 6-10 half-assed reviews a year, I do 2 or 3 more thorough reviews. My point wasn't "Oh, poor me," but rather to interrogate the expectation that any faculty member should be able to handle a certain number of reviews. It's heavily institution-dependent. And, to answer the question above ("You don't have half a day every couple months?"): No, I don't. My own research is done in 15-minute bursts here and there. There's never half a day for anything. Welcome to the life of a SLAC faculty member. Until today, I hadn't even checked this site in months because I haven't had time. I'm a bit sorry that I did. With all due respect if you spend 18 hours a week in meetings then you are failing miserably in time management. I'm tenured at a top-15 department serve on 4 dept/college committees some of which are the most time intensive (graduate), half a dozen thesis/diss committees, 2 RAs. I maybe MAYBE spend 18 hours a month in meetings.
|
|
|
Post by Um why? on Jan 26, 2014 15:15:04 GMT -5
With all due respect if you spend 18 hours a week in meetings then you are failing miserably in time management. I'm tenured at a top-15 department serve on 4 dept/college committees some of which are the most time intensive (graduate), half a dozen thesis/diss committees, 2 RAs. I maybe MAYBE spend 18 hours a month in meetings. And, despite these credentials, I still manage to find the time to troll the sociology jobs board. So there! Seriously, if you're a tenured professor and trolling/commenting on these boards, you're failing miserably ... at life. Don't you have better things to do than pick on graduate students and newly minted PhDs? Go away!
|
|
|
Post by I don't know... on Jan 26, 2014 15:46:30 GMT -5
I like that associates and fulls show up on this board along with grads, postdocs, assistants, adjuncts, etc. I think we benefit from their perspectives also. I don't think "you're doing it wrong" meant to pick on anyone. Rather, s/he makes a point about time management. Since meetings (often) suck up time better spent in other ways, it is a good idea to limit them. 18 hours a week sounds very oppressive indeed. That is not an insult--perhaps this scholar has no choice. Personally, I will leave academe before I spend 18 hrs per week in meetings.
|
|
|
Post by look on Jan 26, 2014 16:27:09 GMT -5
If you submit papers for review, then you should review papers. You owe as many reviews as there are reviewers for your papers, period. And if you complain about crappy reviewers, then you definitely need to step up. We are all busy. Personally, I would love to protect my time and say no to those requests, but I realize there are junior scholars out there (like me) who just submitted their paper and are hoping for a quick answer--good or bad--so they can build their credentials and get a job or postdoc or better job or tenure or whatever. Reviewing is part of my job, as far as I am concerned. I put a lot of time and attention into it because I care about my discipline and I care about being fair.
|
|
you're doing it wrong
Guest
|
Post by you're doing it wrong on Jan 26, 2014 16:58:39 GMT -5
With all due respect if you spend 18 hours a week in meetings then you are failing miserably in time management. I'm tenured at a top-15 department serve on 4 dept/college committees some of which are the most time intensive (graduate), half a dozen thesis/diss committees, 2 RAs. I maybe MAYBE spend 18 hours a month in meetings. And, despite these credentials, I still manage to find the time to troll the sociology jobs board. So there! Seriously, if you're a tenured professor and trolling/commenting on these boards, you're failing miserably ... at life. Don't you have better things to do than pick on graduate students and newly minted PhDs? Go away! Well I do have to fill all of those 18 hours a week I'm not wasting in meetings. I'm not picking on anyone, just pointing out a load of BS when I see it. If someone is telling people that they spend 18 hours a week in mostly unavoidable meetings they are either full of shit or a total idiot. And while we're at it why on earth are you holding 6 hours/week of office hours? Do you have 10,000 students a semester? If you are a professional scholar then just do the reviews and quit whining about how busy you are. Everyone is busy and we all find the time to do them
|
|
|
Post by stop...please on Jan 26, 2014 17:39:09 GMT -5
Please stop this thread. Please. All the updated posts are this thread and no useful information has been posted.
|
|
|
Post by anony on Jan 27, 2014 11:11:40 GMT -5
Ditto-- In grad school I had a lot of time for reviewing, but that time shriveled up with a 3-4 teaching load and major roles on large college-level committees (which I'm forced into, more or less). Where does one find the time with 18 hours a week of meetings, 10 hours of teaching, 6 office-hours, probably 4 hours of behind-the-secnes committee/admin work, advising undergrad theses (several at the same time), grading hundreds of pages of student work, and trying to have a life. Even finding time for my own research is difficult. That doesn't mean I'm a selfish asshole. What it means is that I work at an institution that doesn't value or reward that sort of work, and although I see the importance in it, I'm already working a 60-hour week. So, rather than do 6-10 half-assed reviews a year, I do 2 or 3 more thorough reviews. My point wasn't "Oh, poor me," but rather to interrogate the expectation that any faculty member should be able to handle a certain number of reviews. It's heavily institution-dependent. And, to answer the question above ("You don't have half a day every couple months?"): No, I don't. My own research is done in 15-minute bursts here and there. There's never half a day for anything. Welcome to the life of a SLAC faculty member. Until today, I hadn't even checked this site in months because I haven't had time. I'm a bit sorry that I did. With all due respect if you spend 18 hours a week in meetings then you are failing miserably in time management. I'm tenured at a top-15 department serve on 4 dept/college committees some of which are the most time intensive (graduate), half a dozen thesis/diss committees, 2 RAs. I maybe MAYBE spend 18 hours a month in meetings. I also think the thread should cease, but I feel compelled to respond to the comment above that said I was failing at time management. It needs a response: Most/all of the junior faculty at my institution spend large amounts of time in meetings and doing committee work. You say you're at a top-15 department, but if you noticed, I said I work at a small teaching-intensive institution. Many (though not all) such institutions are service-heavy, and I think grad students reading this thread should know that as they apply for jobs. It's not a miserable failure at time management (I still publish a fair bit and my teaching is quite good, in my opinion). Rather, the culture is that the tenured faculty members dump all of the service on the newbies. Then, as people get tenure and advance in their careers they stop doing any and all service. So, being more junior means meetings upon meetings. It's what senior colleagues expect of you. Your university may not work that way, but you work at an R-1. I don't. Apples and oranges, my friend. Apples and oranges, my friend.
|
|