Archive for the ‘journals’ Category

that gender studies hoax is dumb, but look at this business model

with 9 comments

Today’s five-minute-hate is on gender studies, or people who dump on gender studies, depending on your POV. The short version for those of you not paying attention: A philosopher and a math PhD decided gender studies is dumb and ideological. They wrote up a jargon- and buzzword-filled article titled “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construction” and paid to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal no one’s ever heard of. Ha ha ha! Take that, gender studies!

This is a stupid prank that has already been taken down in about five different places. I’m not going to bother with that.

But in looking at the original journal, I noticed this crazy business model they have. The journal, Cogent Social Sciences, is an open-access outlet published by Cogent OA. It charges $1350 to publish an article, unless you don’t have $1350, in which case they’ll take some unspecified minimum.

Okay, so far it sounds like every other scammy “peer-reviewed” open access journal. But wait. Cogent OA, it turns out, is owned by Taylor & Francis, one of the largest academic publishers. Taylor & Francis owns Routledge, for instance, and publishes Economy and SocietyEnvironmental Sociology, and Justice Quarterly, to pick a few I’ve heard of.

Cogent OA has a FAQ that conveniently asks, “What is the relationship between Cogent OA and Taylor & Francis?” Here’s the answer (bold is mine):

Cogent OA is part of the Taylor & Francis Group, benefitting from the resources and experiences of a major publisher, but operates independently from the Taylor & Francis and Routledge imprints.

Taylor & Francis and Routledge publish a number of fully open access journals, under the Taylor & Francis Open and Routledge Open imprints. Cogent OA publishes the Cogent Series of multidisciplinary, digital open access journals.

Together, we also provide authors with the option of transferring any sound manuscript to a journal in the Cogent Series if it is unsuitable for the original Taylor & Francis/Routledge journals, providing benefits to authors, reviewers, editors and readers.

So get this: If your article gets rejected from one of our regular journals, we’ll automatically forward it to one of our crappy interdisciplinary pay-to-play journals, where we’ll gladly take your (or your funder’s or institution’s) money to publish it after a cursory “peer review”. That is a new one to me.

There’s a hoax going on here all right. But I don’t think it’s gender studies that’s being fooled.

Written by epopp

May 20, 2017 at 4:16 pm

at contexts, we’ll stand by your article

leave a comment »

Over at Contexts, Phillip and Syed have their own response to the Hypatia/Tuvel controversy. They think that Hypatia should stand by their article and then they describe their recent experience publishing a controversial interview of Rachel Dolezal, conducted by NYU’s Ann Morning:

Contexts as a magazine, we as editors, and Ann Morning took a lot of flak for our publishing this interview. Why did we publish it? Dolezal, like her or not, has a fascinating story, and Morning did a great job interviewing her. Are there reasons to be critical? Of course there are—there always are. So go ahead and criticize, we can take it. We are firmly in the camp that it’s better to publish stuff that sparks a conversation than to not. Haters will hate (cool), but the constructive criticizers help to make our science better. Isn’t that what we signed up for? Criticizers could pitch us an article idea—arguably a better use of time than a Twitter rant. No one actually did this yet, though.

Everything that goes into Contexts (and we should think pretty much every publication, and certainly academic publications) has been approved by the editors (us) whether it is peer-reviewed or not. Unless there’s fraud, you stand behind the authors and their work you publish. Like we did with Ann Morning’s interview with Rachel Dolezal. If you can’t do that, you should resign.

Normally, editors can’t promise much. We can try to get your article reviewed in a timely fashion and we can give tips on responding to reviewers. But I’ll make this additional promise when Rashawn and I take over Contexts in a few months. We may agree with your article, or we may disagree with it, but if we publish it, we’ll stand by it.

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($4.44 – cheap!!!!)/Theory for the Working Sociologist (discount code: ROJAS – 30% off!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street  

Written by fabiorojas

May 10, 2017 at 12:02 pm

it’s all about contexts

It is my pleasure to announce that Rashawn Ray and I will join Contexts as the new editors in Winter 2018. Contexts: Understanding People in Their Social worlds is the ASA’s magazine which brings the cutting edge of sociology to the public. Rashawn and I are humbled by the appointment. A lot of top notch people have edited this journal and we hope to live up to their legacy.

Let me tell you a little bit about Rashawn. I first met Rashawn when he was a graduate student at Indiana University. Immediately, he struck me as a highly intelligent and outgoing person. He begins a conversation with a smile. He is interested in what you have to say and really wants to learn from you. But more than that, he had a real interest in linking sociology to the concerns of everyday life. As time passed, this became clear to me. His research focuses on how social inequality affects health and well being and he is extremely active in getting the sociological vision out there through Facebook, Twitter and public speaking. The right guy for the right job – and associate professors can’t say “no!”

So what do we have in mind? First, we want to build on a decade and a half of excellence. Contexts is a magazine that pleases the mind and the eye. It is also an intellectual magazine that offers the public well-grounded but accessible accounts of academic research. Second, we want to really start engaging with the audiences that might enjoy sociological work, whether it be people in the policy world, business, or the arts. Rashawn and I are excited about the possibilities.

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($4.44 – cheap!!!!)/Theory for the Working Sociologist (discount code: ROJAS – 30% off!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street  

Written by fabiorojas

April 21, 2017 at 12:01 am

socarxiv is launched


Over the summer, SocArXiv announced its development. What is SocArXiv, you ask? It’s a free, open source, open access depository for prepublication versions of papers — a way to get your work out there faster, and to more people. Think SSRN or Academia or ResearchGate, but not-for-profit (SSRN is now owned by Elsevier) and fundamentally committed to accessibility.

Today, a beta version of SocArXiv has launched.

SocArXiv has had the great fortune to partner with the Center for Open Science, the folks who brought you the Reproducibility Project. Because COS was already working on building infrastructure, SocArXiv was quickly able to put up a temporary drop site for papers. (Full disclosure: I’m on the SocArXiv steering committee.)

Just on the basis of that, more than 500 papers have been deposited and downloaded over 10,000 times. Now a permanent site is up, and we will be working to get the word out and encourage sociologists and other social scientists to make the jump. With financial support from the Open Society Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, this thing is looking pretty real.

More developments will be coming in the months ahead. We’ve partnered with the LSE’s International Inequalities Institute to establish our first working paper series, and will be spearheading an outreach effort to academics, as well as continuing to develop additional features. I will doubtless be highlighting some of those here.

In the meanwhile, take a look, and add a paper of your own. It’s quick and painless, and will help you make your work quickly accessible while contributing to the development of open science infrastructure.

For more info on SocArXiv, visit the blog, or follow on Twitter or Facebook.

Written by epopp

December 7, 2016 at 3:46 pm

should you publish in PLoS One?

My response to this question on Facebook:

  1. Do not publish in PLoS if you need a status boost for the job market or promotion.
  2. Do publish if journal prestige is not a factor. My case: good result but I was in a race against other computer scientists. Simply could not wait for a four year journal process.
  3. Reviewer quality: It is run mainly by physical and life scientists. Reviews for my paper were similar in quality to what CS people gave me on a similar paper submitted to CS conferences/journals.
  4. Personally, I was satisfied. Review process fair, fast publication, high citation count. Would not try to get promoted on the paper by itself, though.
  5. A lot of people at strong programs have PLoS One pubs but usually as part of a larger portfolio of work.
  6. A typical good paper in PLoS is from a strong line of work but the paper just bounced around or too idiosyncratic.
  7. PLoS One publishes some garbage.
  8. Summary: right tool for the right job. Use wisely.

Another person noted that many elite scientists use the “Science, Nature, or PLoS One model.” In other words, you want high impact or just get it out there. No sense wasting years of time with lesser journals.

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($2!!!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street 

Written by fabiorojas

October 11, 2016 at 12:13 am

the pager paper, sociological science, and the journal process

Last week, we discussed Devah Pager’s new paper on the correlation between discrimination in hiring and firm closure. As one would expect from Pager, it’s a simple and elegant paper using an audit study to measure the prevalence and consequences of discrimination in the labor market. In this post, I want to use the paper to talk about the journal publication process. Specifically, I want to discuss why this paper appeared in Sociological Science.

First, it may be the case that Professor Pager directly went to Sociological Science without trying another peer reviewed journal. If so, then I congratulate both Pager and Sociological Science. By putting a high quality paper into public access, both Professor Pager and the editors of Sociological Science have shown that we don’t need the lengthy and cumbersome developmental review system to get work out there.

Second, it may be the case that Professor Pager tried another journal, probably the ASR or AJS or an elite specialty journal and it was rejected. If so, that raises an important question – what specifically was “wrong” with this paper? Whatever one thinks of the Becker theory of racial discrimination, one can’t critique the paper on lacking a “framing” or have a simple and clean research design. One can’t critique statistical technique because it’s a simple comparison of means. One can’t critique the importance of the finding – the correlation between discrimination in hiring and firm closure is important to know and notable in size. And, of course, the paper is short and clearly written.

Perhaps the only criticism I can come up with is a sort of “identification fundamentalism.” Perhaps reviewers brought up the fact discrimination was not randomly assigned to firms so you can’t infer anything from the correlation. That is bizarre because it would render Becker’s thesis un-testable. What experimental design would allow you get a random selection of firms to suddenly become racist in their hiring practices? Here, the only sensible approach is Bayesian – you collect high quality observational data and revise your beliefs accordingly. This criticism, if it was made, isn’t sound upon reflection. I wonder what, possibly, could the grounds for rejection be aside from knee jerk anti-rational choice comments or discomfort with a finding that markets do have some corrective to racial discrimination.

Bottom line: Pager and the Sociological Science crew are to be commended. Maybe Pager just wanted this paper “out there” or just got tired of the review process. Either way, three cheers for Pager and the Soc Sci Crew.

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($2!!!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street

Written by fabiorojas

September 28, 2016 at 12:10 am

agreements and disagreements with rob warren

Rob Warren, of the University of Minnesota, wrote some very engaging and insightful comments about his time as the editor of Sociology of Education. Jeff Guhin covered this last week. Here, I’ll add my own comments. First, a strong nod of agreement:

First, a large percentage of papers had fundamental research design flaws. Basic methodological problems—of the sort that ought to earn a graduate student a B- in their first-year research methods course—were fairly common.4 (More surprising to me, by the way, was how frequently reviewers seemed not to notice such problems.) I’m not talking here about trivial errors or minor weaknesses in research designs; no research is perfect. I’m talking about problems that undermined the author’s basic conclusions. Some of these problems were fixable, but many were not.

Yes. Professor Warren is correct. Once you are an editor, or simply an older scholar who has read a lot of journal submissions, you quickly realize that there a lot of papers that really, really flub research methods 101. For example, a lot of paper rely on convenience samples, which lead to biased results. Warren has more on this issue.

Now, let me get to where I think Warren is incorrect:

Second, and more surprising to me: Most papers simply lacked a soul—a compelling and well-articulated reason to exist. The world (including the world of education) faces an extraordinary number of problems, challenges, dilemmas, and even mysteries.  Yet most papers failed to make a good case for why they were necessary. Many analyses were not well motivated or informed by existing theory, evidence, or debates. Many authors took for granted that readers would see the importance of their chosen topic, and failed to connect their work to related issues, ideas, or discussions. Over and over again, I kept asking myself (and reviewers also often asked): So what?

About five years ago, I used to think this way. Now, I’ve mellowed and come to a more open minded view. Why? In the past, I have rejected a fair number of papers on “framing” grounds. Later, I will see them published in other journals, often with high impact. Also, in my own career, leading journals have rejected my work on “framing” grounds and when it gets published in another leading journal, the work will get cited. The framing wasn’t that bad. Lesson? A lot of complaints about are framing are actually arbitrary. Instead, let the work get published and let the wider community decide, not the editor and a few peer reviewers.

The evidence on the reliability of the peer review process suggests that there is a lot of randomness in the process. If some of these “soul-less” papers had been resubmitted a few months later, some of them would have been accepted with enthusiastic reviews. Here’s a 2006 review of the literature on journal reliability and here’s the classic 1982 article showing that a lot of journal acceptance is indeed random. Ironically, Peters and Ceci (1982) note that “serious methodological flaws” are a common reason for rejecting papers – that had already been accepted!

This brings me to Warren’s third point – a complaint about people who submit poorly developed papers. He suggests that there are job pressures and a lack of training. On the training point, there is nothing to back up his assertion. Most social science programs have a fairly standard sequence of quantitative methods courses. The basic issues regarding causation v. description, identification, and assessment of instrument quality are all pretty easy to learn. Every year, the ICPSR offers all kinds of training. Training we have, in spades.

On the jobs point, I would like to blame people like Professor Warren and his colleagues on hiring and promotion committees (which includes me!!). The job market for the better positions in sociology (R1 jobs and competitive liberal arts schools) has essentially evolved into whoever gets into the top journals in graduate school plus graduate program reputation.

I’d suggest we simply think about the incentives here. Junior scholars live in a world where a lot of weight is placed on a very small number of journals. They also live in a world where journal acceptance is random. They also live in a world where journals routinely lose papers, reject after multiple R&R rounds and takes years (!) to respond (see my journal horror stories post). How would any rational person respond to this environment? Answer: just send out a lot of stuff until something hits. There is no incentive to develop a paper well if it will be randomly rejected after sitting at the journal for 16 months.

This is why I openly praise and encourage reforms of the journal system. I praise “platform” publishing like PLoS One. I praise “up or down” curated publishing, like Sociological Science. I praise Socius, the open access ASA journal. I praise socArxiv for creating an open pre-print portal. I praise editors who speed the review process and I praise multiple submissions practices. The basic issues that Professor Warren discusses are real. But the problem isn’t training or stressed out junior scholars. The problem is the archaic journal system. Let’s make it better.

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($2!!!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street

Written by fabiorojas

August 9, 2016 at 12:01 am