|
Post by what a joke on Nov 6, 2011 15:57:07 GMT -5
There is still a person in academia who believes peer review is truly blind? Really?
In my subfield I would estimate that I have a strong idea of whose paper I am reading at least half of the time. In some instances when I definitely know whose paper I've received, I let the editor know that. And so far, each of the editors have told me it's not a problem. Any you know what--it really shouldn't be a problem. Because we already know that the vast majority of making it in sociology is networks and nepotism, so maybe we should all just stop pretending that meritocracy and objectivity is Real. And perhaps the only way to actually make it in this increasingly-ridiculous game is for us to start playing it. Get yourself into the peer review system of the top journals in the field or your area and start advancing scholarship that is receiving short shrift.
|
|
|
Post by enough cynicism on Nov 6, 2011 16:04:10 GMT -5
The point is that new scholars can and do get papers published in elite journals all the time, and while it might be easier for an elite name to get through if his or her work is recognizable and liked by reviewers, good work is not just dismissed because nobody can discern who wrote it. Let's cut out the cynicism and stop bitching as though the only way that others can stand better than we is because they eat from silver spoons.
|
|
|
Post by thumbs up on Nov 6, 2011 16:27:50 GMT -5
I read a study recently, can't remember where, that found that while people often *think* they know whose work they're reading under blind peer review, the rate at which they were found to be wrong was stunningly high, like 80% of the time or so. Wish I could recall which discipline; I don't think it was soc.
|
|
|
Post by high horse on Nov 6, 2011 18:17:46 GMT -5
Sociology is the discipline of cynicism where cynicism's well-deserved. Perhaps you got lost on your way to the Positive Psychology board.
|
|
anon
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by anon on Nov 6, 2011 18:48:01 GMT -5
All you have to do is to do a google search for the title of the ms you are reviewing. 90 percent of the time there is a working paper, unpublished paper, paper under review or a conference paper with the same title on someone's cv. (Whether it is ethical to do such a search is a different question of course) So I would say that people are 90 percent correct. People sometimes make wrong guesses about the names of their anonymous reviewers. But even that is not too often.
|
|
|
Post by statcounter on Nov 6, 2011 18:56:59 GMT -5
If you have a website and track visitors (using statcounter or others) it's easy to guess your reviewers as well. When someone from University X's IP address lands on your website after a google search for the title of your paper (especially if that title isn't the same as the conference version you've presented), it's pretty clear it's a reviewer. The notion of double-blind review is pretty meaningless at this point and at least one journal is only single blind (SSR).
|
|
|
Post by ohnoes on Nov 6, 2011 21:49:44 GMT -5
Even if peer review was really anonymous (I've reviewed 4 articles for top journals so far, and in all of them I was completely aware of who the author was because my specialty area isn't that big, so I had seen the papers presented before), the editor still knows who is on either side of the process.
And that makes a huge difference, especially in smaller specialties. There are many subfields and strands of research in sociology that are at least somewhat at odds with each other. Something as simple as selecting the reviewers can be the difference between a speedy acceptance and death by a thousand methodological paper cuts.
And after reviewer selection, how much attention the editor pays to each reviewer is also key.
|
|
|
Post by wow on Nov 7, 2011 1:23:13 GMT -5
After reading the assistant's CV I am embarrassed that I even applied to this job.
|
|
|
Post by embarrassed2 on Nov 7, 2011 7:16:12 GMT -5
Me too. Then again, I'm having difficulty identifying any jobs where I am qualified with a modest research profile and the desire to do research. Before the second half of graduate school, when I imagined that my papers would magically be published by the first journal I sent them to, I never considered that it would be this difficult to beat the learning curve and develop an adequate publication record for a job.
|
|
|
Post by dontbeembarrassed on Nov 7, 2011 8:14:42 GMT -5
Don't be embarrassed, folks. Chances are good that they didn't even read your application. Or mine.
|
|
|
Post by dont envy on Nov 7, 2011 8:25:13 GMT -5
These scholars have done quite well on paper, but has anybody here even read any of their work yet? Don't stand in awe of a CV; especially for grad students, that usually just tells you what opportunities came along that they took advantage of. Agency is important, so these scholars worked hard, probably worked intelligently, as well, and we assume that they have something meaningful to say rather than just a talent for filling up pages of paper. They are to be praised for what they have done thus far, but that doesn't mean that they are any better suited to do great things going forward than everybody else who didn't get the call.
|
|