dear asr: stop it, please just stop it

Update: Olderwoman reminds me that she did not single out the ASR in her original post. I have revised this post to reflect that. Regardless, we agree that journal norms are broken, especially at our beloved flagship journal.

This morning, I read olderwoman’s blog post about problems with journals that request too many revisions, or that invite revisions too easily (“inflated R&Rs”). This issue has arisen with respect to the American Sociological Review, the flagship journal of the American Sociological Association. The ASR has been giving R&R’s to many submitted articles, much more than average, and they are soliciting many reviews per article. It has also been sending articles through multiple rounds of revisions, leading to articles being held at the journal for years. Since they seem to accept to same number of articles per year (about 40), that implies that the multiple rounds of revision do not lead to publication for many authors. Here is my response to that post:

I am asking the American Sociological Review to curtail this practice. In writing this, I have no personal stake in this matter. I do not have any papers under review, nor has the ASR accepted my previous submissions. I only write as a member of the profession, senior faculty at a top 20 program, a former managing editor of an ASA journal (Sociological Methodology), former associate editor of the American Journal of Sociology, occasional board member for various journals, author, and reviewer.

The inflated R&R policy is damaging sociology in a few ways. First, by continually R&R’ing papers that have little chance of publication, the ASR is “trapping” papers that may be perfectly suitable for specialty journals or other outlets. Thus, inflated R&Rs keep good research out of the public eye for years. You are suppressing science.

Second, inflated R&Rs damage the reputation of the ASR itself. The goal of a flagship journal is to be very picky. When people hear that a paper has been invited for revision, they believe that the editors think that the paper is of great merit and wide relevance. Inflated R&Rs undermine that perception.

Third, you are damaging people’s careers. By trapping papers, you preventing papers from being resubmitted to other journals that can help their careers. Also, R&R invitations are often seen as signs of intellectual progress, especially for doctoral students and junior faculty. By lumping together strong and weak papers, you are debasing the “currency” of the R&R. When people see “R&R at American Sociological Review,” they no longer know what to think and that pollutes the junior level job market.

Fourth, you are wasting precious time. Reviewers are usually full time faculty who teach, mentor graduate and undergraduate students, do administrative work, conduct research, and have full family lives. Thus, when you ask for a fourth reviewer, or a invite a paper for a third round of R&R, you are taking up many, many scarce resources.

If a typical professor earns $50/hour, and it takes about 3 hours to read and write comments, then three rounds of R&R with four reviewers each, creates a cost of $50 * 3 * 4 *3 = $1800 for each paper . By doing that for hundreds of papers, you’ve burned up almost a half-million dollars in faculty time. I did not to mention the ill feeling generated when reviewers see yet another request for a review.

So, please, implement policies then ensure an efficient, reliable, and highly selective e review process. It’s the right thing to do.



Written by fabiorojas

July 25, 2013 at 12:02 am

Posted in academia, fabio, sociology

43 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. To be clear, please, my post is not ABOUT ASR, although I did specifically cite one ASR example. ASR was NOT the journal that set this off and is NOT the only journal that is creating vast cycles of R&Rs or over-using reviewers



    July 25, 2013 at 12:29 am

  2. Insofar as issues 2 – 4 increasingly become a problem, shouldn’t issue 1 be resolved by an increase in authors withdrawing their manuscripts from consideration at ASR in order to get a faster turnaround elsewhere?

    And then as fewer people let their manuscripts wallow in R&R-land at ASR, at least issue 2 should become less of a problem.



    July 25, 2013 at 1:02 am

  3. The original point — and suggested remedies — reach well beyond ASR, but the shift in ASR policy in recent years (post Jerry Jacobs) has been noticeable and deplorable. This may reflect trying to be “nice” but as Fabio eloquently points out, the result is the opposite.



    July 25, 2013 at 1:52 am

  4. I have heard so many horror stories about ASR over the past five years. I have been on the reviewer side of the R&R inflation problem a couple of times. In these cases, the editors at ASR blatantly ignored the recommendations of reviewers, giving an R&R despite strong consensus that there were major methodological flaws and practically no chance of resolving these in a revision. In what world is this a good idea?!?! I spend considerable time and effort on reviews for ASR, and I feel like it has often been a waste. I am now much more selective in accepting their reviewer invitations. As a side note, prior to getting tenure, I also had a paper go through an R&R at ASR only to be rejected nearly two years after the original submission. The article was eventually published in AJS…but I’m not bitter or anything.

    Liked by 2 people


    July 25, 2013 at 2:00 am

  5. @pretendous: The problem with just taking your papers elsewhere is that (a) other soc journals suffer R&R inflation and (b) hiring and promotion committees in sociology disproportionately value ASR and AJS compared to other journals, So by switching, you are taking a bit hit in terms of jobs. That’s why there’s no incentive to change on the part of the journals.

    Liked by 1 person


    July 25, 2013 at 3:02 am

  6. I completely agree with Fabio’s request, and Olderwoman’s post. Multiple R&Rs combined with infinite numbers of reviewers wastes everyone’s time and damages careers in very real ways.

    One parsimonious solution is making the desk reject a normative option. While harsh, it saves everyone time and effort, except for the editors. But that’s what they’ve signed up for.

    (As an aside, given the current ASR horror stories I’ve decided not to submit there until there’s a change in editors.)



    July 25, 2013 at 6:52 am

  7. Two words: “Sociological Science.”

    To elaborate a bit (and speaking just for myself; my SocSci colleagues may have a somewhat different take):

    It’s not that there is no place for the traditional model. I personally have had very good experiences over the years, on both sides of the R&R process. But there are enough challenges in making it work that it seems like an opportune time to experiment with a different logic. I expect the two logics to co-exist and complement one another. If you want a developmental process, you send to AJS or ASR. If you want an up-or-down decision (within a month!), you send it to SocSci. I look forward to great sociology published (and not languishing in process…) at all three journals.

    BTW, another issue with the traditional model is that, given the expectation that the best a paper can do is get an R&R, this induces authors to use a lower threshold for submitting a paper– once it seems over the R&R threshold, why work on making the paper stronger? And this is not even to mention some people who try to game the R&R process. A very prominent sociologist once told me that he leaves fixable mistakes in first submissions to divert reviewers from the really difficult problems that he cannot fix. So then he gets an R&R and on the next round, he shows improvement in the paper and that he listened to reviewers. I imagine there are other tricks out there too. Eliminating the R&R eliminates such gaming, and induces a higher threshold for submission. Write great papers and submit them to SocSci!



    July 25, 2013 at 12:08 pm

  8. As a non-academic, my question would be about those hundreds of papers sitting as R&Rs. Do the authors see their own resumes as stronger with an ASR R&R on it, or with an actual publication from SocSci (or other journal)?

    My experience is that ASR (and AJS) retain such prestige — in the eyes of aspiring sociologists — that many R&R authors actually don’t mind if the R&R sits on their resumes for months, years, whatever. It’s under consideration at ASR!

    Could Fabio be unearthing a problem that isn’t a problem to the actual participants?



    July 25, 2013 at 1:17 pm

  9. Three words: Administrative Science Quarterly. All the prestige of ASR, median time to first decision of 42 days, scrupulous standards of desk rejection (to avoid over-burdening reviewers), a limit of two rounds of revision, a developmental (yet expeditious) review process, and a thoughtful load allocation among reviewers. Best editorial board in the world. Great papers are often in print within a year of first submission; papers with little chance are gently desk-rejected, typically within 48 hours of submission.



    July 25, 2013 at 3:15 pm

  10. Austen: There may be a disconnect between grad students/job seekers and members of search committees in the perceived value of having an ASR or AJS R&R on a CV. My experience on junior search committees (R1) is that an R&R at ASR is in itself “worth” very little. First, many candidates now have them, or the equivalent. It’s like grade inflation: a 4.0 no longer differentiates excellent from good students.

    Second, if ASR is sitting on 120 papers with R&Rs (a number I’ve heard, but haven’t confirmed) and is commonly asking for multiple rounds of revision before rejecting a paper, an R&R has little value as a predictor of eventual acceptance. From the candidate’s perspective, it may be smarter to just indicate that a paper is under review or in revision without specifying the journal. When the paper ultimately gets rejected by ASR — the likely outcome — no one will be the wiser.

    Third, I think there’s widespread recognition that although ASR and AJS papers may on average be stronger than the papers that appear in second- or third-tier general interest journals, the variance is large. When I’m reviewing job candidate files, I’m not impressed by seeing “R&R at ASR” on a CV, I’m impressed by reading what I think is a good paper.

    At least among the folks I talk to, there’s also a sense that the flagship journals are doing a worse job of separating the wheat from the chaff, so the quality signal of flagship publication is weaker than it once was. I don’t know if it’s actually true that more bad papers are getting in to ASR/AJS and more good ones are rejected, but in many ways it’s the perception that matters.



    July 25, 2013 at 5:08 pm

  11. 120 waiting R&Rs? Can anyone confirm or deny? If this number is accurate, it’s an outrage even bigger than what’s been expressed so far.

    Editors at top flight journals like ASR and elsewhere should only be giving R&Rs to those papers that they believe will very likely be accepted there. The ‘take-a-chance’ R&R is better suited for the smaller journal with fewer submissions.



    July 25, 2013 at 5:51 pm

  12. @jerry & ezra: Yes, we should shift papers to other journals!

    @krippendorf: I agree that junior people may put too much weight on the R&R from a big journal. But they do so for a good reason.The most competitive jobs go to people with that on the CV.

    I know you work at a competitive program, so let me ask you to compute a few numbers for me about your program over, say, the last ten years:

    A= % of junior job candidates w/ASR or AJS
    B = % of junior faculty w/ASR or AJS
    C= % of tenured faculty w/ASR or AJS
    D % of full professors w/ASR or AJS

    Is it the case that A > B > C > D? And how close is D to one?

    My hypothesis is that if you look at PhD programs in soc, you get the predicted pattern and it is stronger the higher up you go. Sure, there are some nuances. Qualitative folks may substitute a book from the top three or four presses, or a demographer may choose to do a top population journal. But these are all flavors of the same process: promotion at the top levels is conditional on “top journals.”

    That’s why there’s a bottleneck. It is extremely rational to just send a bunch of stuff at the high prestige and hope for a hit. At Indiana, we call it “getting the legitimizer.” It may or may not be the best work, but it will guarantee your paycheck somewhere.

    In other words, it’s easy to say that we don’t rely on ASR/AJS, but in fact a lot of people do.



    July 25, 2013 at 6:06 pm

  13. @fabio: Are those inequalities going the wrong way? Seems like junior job candidates would have the lowest % of CV’s with top pubs.


    Brad Spahn

    July 25, 2013 at 7:47 pm

  14. Just to chime in, I am finishing up my PhD in a top-10 program right now, and I have had two faculty advise me to avoid ASR because of all the reasons you list. So, I can confirm that, at least here, their reputation is hurting. Isn’t the current editors’ term up this year, by the way? Or have they been reappointed?



    July 25, 2013 at 8:19 pm

  15. ^^ A should be “percentage of junior hires”, or something of sorts. Otherwise it would presumably be far lower than B.



    July 25, 2013 at 8:21 pm

  16. What data are we using to support the claim that R&R rates have gone up at ASR in recent years? I’m not disagreeing with the intuition – I seem to know a lot of people with R&Rs – but how do we know that the rate of giving R&Rs has changed over the years? Is the journal now giving more second and third round R&Rs?

    Anyone have the data?


    brayden king

    July 25, 2013 at 8:26 pm

  17. Agree with Brayden. Without real data, the discussion here seems to be mainly based on idiosyncratic experiences or anecdotes heard from others or simply personal guesses. ASR recruits new reviewers during the review process. We all know this. This is an approach it has been using for years. So this is certainly not something new to this journal. If we were fine with that in the past, why not now?

    Better not to make unjustified claims/criticisms, especially to such a prestigious journal. Data please!



    July 25, 2013 at 8:48 pm

  18. @Brayden & @OS:

    Yes, I would LOVE to see statistics on this issue. Please, if anyone at ASR (or other journals) is reading this, please, please, please provide the information. I would love to know that ASR R&Rs few papers and has a good rate of accepting them.

    PS. OS, while I don’t have special access to ASR, there’s been enough talk that indicates that the issue needs to be discussed. And we won’t get an answer till we name specific journals and get some answers.



    July 25, 2013 at 8:52 pm

  19. OS: ASA provides publication reports online. They recently started putting “Outstanding R&Rs”, although one wonders exactly how that is operationalized. Anyway, by that standard ASR has a ratio of 1.9 to 1 of “Outstanding R&Rs” to “Articles Published”, while the other ASA journals are around 1:1. I’m not going to do your Googling for you, though; if I found it in a few minutes, so can you.



    July 25, 2013 at 8:59 pm

  20. I am in the middle of many meetings. But it does show a big increase if other journals are at 1:1.



    July 25, 2013 at 9:01 pm

  21. I’m looking forward to the next organizational sociologist who does a comparative study of competing logics at SocScience and ASR. It looks like Jerry would love to have it in ASQ!



    July 25, 2013 at 10:25 pm

  22. Like Jeremy says, it’s difficult to know precisely how both of these measures are operationalized. But you can use the PDF reports available here and take the percentage of R&Rs relative to those that weren’t desk-rejected. Then you’d get the following rates:

    2007 – 18%
    2008 – 10%
    2009 – 14%
    2010 – 24%
    2011 – 22%
    2012 – 20%

    Since the number of submissions has increased pretty dramatically over the past few years, this would mean a somewhat steep increase in the absolute number of mss. that are currently at the R&R stage (not to mention carryover R&Rs from previous years). For example, 584 mss were reviewed in 2009, compared to 820 in 2011 and 841 in 2012. One also wonders whether the lower bar for an R&R has served as a magnet for submissions (rather than other considerations like impact factor, etc.)



    July 25, 2013 at 10:27 pm

  23. These are the percentages of reviewed articles that were rejected after the first round of review.

    2007- 48%
    2008 – 55%
    2009 – 58%
    2010 – 47%
    2011 – 48%
    2012 – 53%

    Based on these numbers the new editors aren’t being any less selective, but as anon. points out in the previous comment the story is all in the number of submissions being cleared for review.

    2007 – 649
    2008 – 656
    2009 – 584
    2010 – 615
    2011 – 820
    2012 – 841

    The increase in R&Rs is largely a function of the increase in the number of manuscripts. The total number of R&Rs is going up but the selectivity isn’t changing that much, which means you have a higher number of R&Rs in the queue. And this only seems to have become an issue since 2011.


    brayden king

    July 25, 2013 at 11:39 pm

  24. grouchosis
    Posted July 25, 2013 at 5:25 pm | Permalink
    a bit of data, based on past ASR editors’ reports:
    I calculated both A. rejects as a percentage of rejects plus r&r that led to reject AND B. accept plus conditional accept as a ratio to r&r rejects.
    For 2011 A=.68, B=.50
    For 2010 A=.66 B=.34

    For 2006 A=.84, B= 1.39
    For 2005 A=.80 B= 1.37
    Simple conclusion, something has changed: the probability of r&r meaning it is closer to being published than not. I conclude that too many papers are getting r&r and ending up rejected (after wasting more reviewer time) even before one estimates how many r&r or conditional accept and accept went through multiple r&r to get to a decision of any kind.

    The desk reject rate is actually higher now (about 65/yr) than under the previous editors (about 20/yr) so the issue seems to me to be making informed judgments about mixed reviews.


    Myra Ferree

    July 25, 2013 at 11:49 pm

  25. @fabiorojas. Looking back at our junior job candidates over the past 10 years was an interesting exercise. And, because I’m supposed to be writing a review for ASR today — I’m not kidding — the time sink was worthwhile. (The real cause of rising review times: orgtheory.)

    Here’s what I came up with. I only included freshly minted PhD candidates. I counted articles that were “forthcoming” or “conditional accept” at the time of the search, but not R&Rs. In the rare event that a candidate had 2 ASR or AJS’s, I categorized him or her into the highest category per the rule, solo > first author with professor > second or later author with professor. I rounded to the nearest multiple of 5, which is why the % don’t add up to 100.

    Candidates who gave job talks
    – ASR or AJS, solo-authored or co-authored with another grad student: 20%
    – ASR or AJS, first author with professor(s): 10%
    – ASR or AJS, second or later author with professor(s): 10%
    – other pubs: 45%
    – no pubs: 10%

    Candidates who received offers
    – solo-authored: 20%
    – first author: 15%
    – second or later: 15%
    – other pubs: 40%
    – no pubs: 5%

    The messages I take from this are (a) you don’t have to have an ASR or AJS pub to be successful here, and (b) once you make it to the interview stage, having an ASR/AJS — even if solo-authored — doesn’t give you a glaring advantage. (The N is small, even pooling 10 years.)

    I couldn’t go back and calculate what percentage of candidates with an ASR or AJS made the short list, but it’s not 100%.

    Virtually all of our juniors have at least one ASR/AJS by the time they come up for tenure, unless it’s someone who has published extensively in top-tier special interest journals. All but one of our senior professors, a “book person,” has published in ASR or AJS at some point in their careers.



    July 26, 2013 at 12:08 am

  26. Clearly, editorial decision making has not kept pace with a substantial increase in submissions.

    I liked Jeremy’s suggestion on Scatterplot of capping the number of rounds at 3 (original submission, 2 R&Rs) and on the second R&R no new reviewers brought in. If that can’t give the editors enough information to make a decision then they don’t deserve to be editors.

    On a prior point: faculty at the top Ph.D. granting departments might not put any stock in an R&R on a CV, but at R2s, SLACs, etc. even saying under review at ASR can carry some weight. (Even though this is not rational.)



    July 26, 2013 at 12:10 am

  27. Can I just point out how irrational and archaic it is that any journal has a fixed number of articles it can accept because of printed page costs? Is there a fixed amount of top-quality science that can be done in any one year? Anyone who uses the existence of the publication on someone’s CV as an indicator of quality, comparable to other people who do different kinds of work — in years with different submission and acceptance rates — is lazy or misguided.


    Philip N. Cohen

    July 26, 2013 at 12:38 am

  28. I agree with Philip. I think we should abandon the practice of physically printing and mailing out journals. Maybe I’m biased as a relatively young scholar, but I can’t remember the last time I read an article out of a hard copy of a journal. Letting these go would not only reduce costs, but would allow for more flexibility on the number of articles that could be published. It’s 2013, time to let go of archaic models of publishing.



    July 26, 2013 at 1:13 am

  29. I don’t know how to read those Summaries of Editorial Activity. It looks to me like the total number of submissions includes R&R and conditional accepts being resubmitted. So while Brayden wrote, “The increase in R&Rs is largely a function of the increase in the number of manuscripts.”, I read the table as saying the opposite: The increase in manuscripts is largely a function of the increase in the number of R&Rs.

    By my count, about two R&Rs were sent out by ASR for every published article in 2009. In 2012, there was about four R&Rs for every published articles. That is roughly equal to every published article having to go through an additional round of R&R plus 40 more R&Rs sent to articles that don’t end up published in ASR.

    It’s unfortunate that other journals don’t publish numbers–I presume at least part of the reason the focus is on ASR is because there is data to mine.


    neal caren

    July 26, 2013 at 1:31 am

  30. @krippendorf: I take a slightly different message – AJS/ASR are disproportionately represented compared to any other single journal. At stage 1 in your program (interview), these two journals account for 40% of candidates. At job offer stage, 45%. What % can SF/SP claim for each stage? So my guess is 20% or so at each stage, at best. Other journals probably account for less as the candidate’s “best” or only pub.

    Thus, the conclusion I take is that compared to any other *single* journal, AJS/ASR, jointly or singly, clearly overwhelms them in terms of getting you to the next stage. The only difference is that at pre-job stages it’s a plurality, and post-job offer it’s an overwhelming majority. My program is similar, but will add SF to the mix. Pre-job offer, my program looks a lot like your program (e.g., when we did a *qualitative search* all three candidates had AJS/ASRs !!). For promotion, every *single* candidate in memory had AJS/ASR/SF on the CV. How I got a job often mystifies me.

    So, yes, if you are at the entry point, it is not a necessity. But let’s not be misleading – these two journals are, by far, the biggest predictors of getting your foot in the door and the biggest predictors of future promotion. Nothing else is close. Not the same ball park. Not even the same sport.

    It’s no wonder that ASR is getting 800+ manuscripts. If there’s a lot of R&Rs being handed out like candy, and there’s a big cache, then people will flock.

    PS. Short lists are cheap talk (in the game theory sense), so I don’t take that data in to my thinking about this issue.



    July 26, 2013 at 4:01 am

  31. Is it time for Pub Comm to ask the ASR editors for a detailed and official explanation of the numbers and their methods of decision? Is it time for the blogerati to petition Pub Comm for such a request?



    July 26, 2013 at 6:48 am

  32. @Fabio: If the review system works at all, the candidates who have written top-notch papers are more likely to have published in ASR or AJS than the candidates who haven’t. And, the candidates with AJS or ASR papers on their CVs are disproportionately likely to have written great papers. This would also generate the % I calculated above, where a larger proportion of successful candidates have ASR/AJS pubs than don’t.
    But the underlying predictor is “great paper,” not “AJS/ASR.”

    I’ll admit, though, that having an ASR or AJS on your CV as a grad student pretty much guarantees that your file will be in the stack that gets read closely by the search committee. I’ll also admit that there’s variation across evaluators in how much effort they put into reading files, and those who don’t read as carefully tend to put greater weight on the marker of ASR or AJS publication (and PhD program, and who the adviser is). To get back to Austen’s original question, R&Rs from ASR and AJS don’t have the same effect. Here.



    July 26, 2013 at 3:10 pm

  33. @cwalken: This isn’t like the dues increase, where ASA did something truly creepy and dishonest to its members. (Remains astonishing, even after all this time.) This is about management practice. The people running ASR are good folks faced with a very difficult task, but that doesn’t mean one can’t voice concern about its execution, especially given that ASR is so consequential for graduate student and junior faculty careers.

    Even before this bubbled up to scatterplot/orgtheory, I sent an e-mail to someone on PubCom that mentioned what I’d heard was the problem and what I thought should be done (an ASA-journal wide ban on 3rd R&Rs and on allowing new reviewers on 2nd R&R). Anyone else can do the same thing. They’re your representatives, and ASR is your journal.



    July 26, 2013 at 4:22 pm

  34. I’m glad to see this discussion of the problems of too many reviewers and multiple R&Rs, which seems to be a particular problem for ASR, but perhaps for AJS too. But my bigger concern is that these two journals have become a primary indicator of “quality” for job and tenure candidates in sociology. I think this is really problematic for the discipline more generally.



    July 26, 2013 at 4:41 pm

  35. As a junior scholar who had a paper stuck for 2 years on R&R hell, let me try to reply to pretendous on why I didn’t withdraw my paper.

    At least in my case, it was never clear that the paper was doomed. In fact, the initial set of reviews we received were fairly mild, so much so that my very senior co-author thought that we would get an acceptance after the first round of revisions. But only 1 of the original 3 reviewers remained, and we started getting ever more demanding requests for revisions. There was never a point where we thought “this isn’t doable” or “this would require major revisions.” So from our point of view, we thought that doing the fairly easy robustness checks and etc. requested would take less time than a fresh submission and likely R&R elsewhere.

    If I were to speculate on what happened, I’d guess that the editors thought the initial reviewers were too easy on us, which is probable. Had we known all that would be required of us upfront, maybe we would have withdrawn it. But from our point of view, all we were getting were requests for more minor revisions at each round.

    The paper has since landed at a pretty good polisci journal. But it honestly required more time and effort on my part than my entire dissertation, mostly because of the years stuck in R&R hell.



    July 26, 2013 at 5:50 pm

  36. now the discussion makes more sense. instead of degrading ASR or suggesting avoiding it, it is more constructive to push for better changes like Jeremy’s.



    July 26, 2013 at 6:01 pm

  37. @OS & others: The reason I’m raising this issue isn’t to disparage people. If you know the folks at ASR, you know they are good people. The issue is making an important scientific institution run in a more efficient way.



    July 26, 2013 at 6:09 pm

  38. Realism is a good thing. Editors make mistakes, sometimes they can correct them, sometimes they dig the whole deeper. This was my acknowledgements from long ago:
    “Data were made available through the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Portions of this article were previously presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, the Southern Sociological Society, and the Public Choice Society. Research was assisted by a grant to the first author from the Vanderbilt University Research Council We thank Mark Chaves, Christopher G. Ellison, Roger Finke, Douglas D. Heckathorn, Laurence R. Iannaccone, Barry Kosmin, Daniel H. Krymkowski, Gerald Maxwell, Richard A. Peterson, Rodney Stark, Robert A. Wortham, ten anonymous reviewers from American Sociological Review, and two anonymous Social Forces reviewers for comments on earlier versions of the paper, although none are responsible for any deficiencies in the final product. “



    July 27, 2013 at 8:01 pm

  39. […] is not really a bad thing. Hopefully, maybe, the latest kerfluffle regarding the editors at American Sociological Review apparently being unable to make a decision on anything brings this into some relief. First, the clusterfuck editorship idea is fucking stupid, and I hope […]


  40. Darren, If your review experiences are anything like mine a truly realistic acknowledgements section would be something like “Data were made available … thanks to six of the ASR reviewers, the other four can engage in anatomical impossibilities”



    July 29, 2013 at 12:08 am

  41. Chris M

    July 30, 2013 at 10:02 pm

  42. […] followed her post with one of his own, talking specifically about ASR and the number of R&Rs that are […]


  43. publishing reviews (without names attached) would be a great resource for junior scholars learning how to read and respond to reviews, as well as for the rest of us, seeing what is going on in the process. I review enough that I see the other reviewers’ anonymous comments, get to evaluate their takes on the manuscript compared to mine, and see what tack the editor took in asking for revision (always pleased when it is following my advice of course). I wish that the standards of confidentiality we use allowed sharing these comments with students since it serves a very instructional purpose. But not only students could learn from them (and unpolished prose can still be very effective reviewing — a lesson worth learning in itself).



    July 31, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: