1 / 14

Thoughts on Publishing 2009 PEN meeting, Bogor

Thoughts on Publishing 2009 PEN meeting, Bogor. Gerald Shively, Purdue University Editor-in-Chief, Agricultural Economics Associate Editor, Environment and Development Economics. Academic Journals. “Owned” by the academic community Either literally or figuratively

fern
Download Presentation

Thoughts on Publishing 2009 PEN meeting, Bogor

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Thoughts on Publishing2009 PEN meeting, Bogor Gerald Shively, Purdue University Editor-in-Chief, Agricultural Economics Associate Editor, Environment and Development Economics

  2. Academic Journals • “Owned” by the academic community • Either literally or figuratively • Governed by page “budgets” • An important and binding constraint • Typical acceptance rates 10-40%

  3. Structure of Journal Operations • Editors (very busy) • Editorial Assistants (not busy) • Associate Editors (think they are busy) • Reviewers (pretend they are busy) • Few incentives for reviewers or associate editors • Few options to “enforce” the reviewing contract

  4. Editors • Typically serve briefly (3-6 years) • Rarely have an “agenda” • Try to serve the community as well as possible • Publish the best possible papers, subject to time, page budget and other constraints • Editors are busy people • They usually have all the regular things to do (teach, conduct research, supervise students, administrate, write grant proposals, and publish their own papers) • Editing is typically an “extra” responsibility

  5. Editor’s Responsibility • Fill the journal with papers that will be widely read and highly cited • Accept papers with novel methods, interesting stories, and general appeal. • Serve as a “gate keeper” for the community by quickly rejecting “bad” papers without using up a lot of precious reviewer or associate editor goodwill • Avoid mistakes and “arbitrariness” • Better to reject a good paper than accept a bad paper • Trust the review process but avoid reviewer “meddling”

  6. Constraints • Running a journal is an exercise in constrained optimization • Understanding constraints is essential to understanding how to improve your chances of getting your papers reviewed and (ultimately) accepted. • Page budgets • Editor’s time and energy • Reviewer’s time and energy

  7. Desk Rejects • Many papers are “desk rejected” • Editor rejects paper without sending it for review • 0-40% of papers (or more), depending on journal • Actually can be helpful for authors in some cases • Which get desk rejects? • Those in obvious need of much work due to dull story, weak analysis or weak writing • Overly narrow subject without no generalizable findings or methods/approach • Papers that are hard to review • Why? Novelty vs. Obscurity

  8. Accepted for Review • Editor will… • Assign best “possible” associate editors and reviewers • Match subject matter and methods • Pick reviewers who know something about the topic and will deliver good reviews on time • Typically 2 reviewers • Editors “tend” not to override reviewers • Split decisions – how are they resolved? • Additional rounds • Editor or Associate Editor as tie-breaker

  9. Author Strategy: Part I • Avoid small and obvious mistakes • Read and obey guidelines for submission • Mistakes in writing are signals of mistakes in analysis • Get help with written English • Align subject matter with journal aims • Show that paper connects to a “conversation” taking place in the journal • Short and informative cover letter • The cover letter rarely influences the process • Suggest reviewers, but do so with caution • Point out connections to previous work in the journal

  10. Author Strategy: Part II • Win over the reviewers (Goal – get R&R) • Be provocative without provoking • Be clear about the research question • 50% of negative reviews focus on this! • Be clear about your methods • the other 50% focus on this!

  11. Author Strategy: Part III • Work on the STORY • Negative reviews rarely focus on conclusions • Get help with written English (co-authorship?) • Make sure your lit review is complete and current • the reviewer is likely to be familiar with the field • Short papers are more likely to succeed • Easier to read: they hold the reader’s attention • Easier to write: maintain continuity of argument

  12. Revise and Resubmit • No guarantee of acceptance • Up to 1/2 of R&Rs are eventually rejected • Why? Failure to satisfy reviewers • 10% of papers that reviewers “accept” the Editor nevertheless rejects. Why? • perception of weak/incomplete reviews • similar or better papers in the pipeline • space limitations and narrow appeal

  13. Rejection • It happens to us all • Move on; don’t take it personally • Challenging a decision rarely works • It may annoy the editor, to your future disadvantage • Take the comments SERIOUSLY and don’t immediately send a flawed paper back out without revising it. • If a reviewer doesn’t understand what you have done, 9 out of 10 times it is the author’s fault.

  14. Good Luck!

More Related