ha - that's funny. I hadn't even thought that Grier might have been the OP, but he almost certainly is! lol. what a loser.
[closed]
Kevin Grier on JOP turnaround time
(56 posts) (2 voices)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
Josh's obsession with the internet was one of my favorite episodes of that show. Good callback.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I haven't been a referee for a (strictly) political science journal in more than two years. But I have done many reports for economics journals during that time (of varying levels of perceived quality/prestige) and a few interdisciplinary journals. Three weeks probably is too short of a window due to other commitments (especially, other previous agreements to serve as a referee or, simply, travel). But three to six months? If you really believe that this is what is required to do a thorough, thoughtful, and satisfactory report, then you should get out of the referee business altogether. I don't want to pile on, but this type of behavior/attitude hurts the scientific advancement of our profession.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"Are you spending 8--12 weeks doing that review? Either "hell no" or you're clinically insane. You're spending some few hours doing it, unless there's a formal model whose results need verification in which case it might take a workday. Frankly, your talk of reflection and deliberation seems like self-serving ****. Really? You spend three months cogitating about a submission? Uh-huh.
Better to spend those few hours doing the review in the first few weeks than leave it on your desk forever and then do it."
^
Clearly you've only reviewed toy formal models. Reviewing real formal models can easily take a week or more, which is one of the reason why reviews in economics take so long (their econometric work is also often of a mathematical level that takes a week or more to review).
Posted 4 years ago # -
^yeah, so if kevin was given a simple, ****, poli sci paper, he should have been able to turn it around pretty quickly.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Ugh, enough with the econ envy. As a previous poster pointed out, those in the hard sciences turn around reviews--even theory--far more quickly than economists. And econ models are not harder than models in those other fields. A more likely explanation is that there are no incentives to review promptly and well, and economists are trained to follow the incentives.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I have never read a paper where I couldn't put everything into Mathematica in a work day. Maybe two.
Posted 4 years ago # -
^ Hahahaha, "put a paper into Mathematica"?? You clearly have never done formal theory or mathematical econometrics.
Posted 4 years ago # -
^^ Hey Mr.Mathematica, do you copy and paste the proofs into Mathematica and ask Mathematica to tell you whether the proof is correct? Do you ask Mathematica to tell you whether this is a correct application of a fixed-point theorem? Dumbass.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Its not econ envy. The reality is that the mathematical level of many econ papers are so far beyond almost anything in political science, that having to spend a week on reviewing a paper is quite typical. Whereas in political science, having to spend more than a day is quite rare.
Posted 4 years ago # -
^ no-- you use maple for proofs
Posted 4 years ago # -
^^I wasn't comparing to political science. I was comparing to the hard sciences, which have as hard or harder math, and review in much less time.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I seriously doubt that theoretical (i.e. highly mathematical) papers in statistics or mathematics get reviewed quickly. It may be that they use fewer reviewers, which would speed up the process, but anytime it takes something on the order of a week or more to review a paper, reviewers are going to delay. It's not like political science where taking an entire day to do a review is considered long.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I think 6 weeks is a very reasonable time for turnaround. If the JOP editors use the 3-week email reminder as a way to stay on track for the 6-week turnaround, that's fine by me. I normally don't get around to refereeing a paper until a recieve a prod from the editors.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Part of my irritation with the "prod" is the tone that has become common from the automated editorial manager systems. There is a huge difference between "your review is due in one week" and "we hope that you will still be able provide a review by x-date."
Posted 4 years ago # -
Everyone complains about slow turnaround times and editors that want a quick reviewer turnaround. Idiots.
Posted 4 years ago # -
It is funny how people all praise JOP for their quick turnaround, but when they expect MY reviews promptly that's unreasonable.
Bottom line - if you can't deliver the review by the deadline, go ahead and say no to the request. Then let them find someone who can.
Posted 4 years ago # -
So naive. You need to realize that reviewing takes a lot of time and the more senior you get, the more requests you get. You need senior reviews to balance out the grad student snarking. Sometimes it may take a bit to get back the review, its part of the process. Believe me, I ran a journal for a long time and reviewers are a delicate bunch. Push too hard and they quit, leaving us scrambling to find people qualified to evaluate the research.
Posted 4 years ago # -
^who writes better (i.e. higher quality reviews) -- juniors or seniors? I'm curious...
[because I get plenty of worthless reviews from people I'm sure are senior]
Posted 4 years ago # -
Re: "Reviewers are a delicate bunch". As someone who does a lot of reviews, the attitude among some that they are doing a journal some sort of tremendous cosmic favor by reviewing a paper kind of pisses me off. The fact of the matter is that if you are actively submitting your research to journals, it is your professional responsibility to review papers and part of that responsibility is reviewing in a timely manner. I chalk it up to other things that I don't usually feel like doing like grading and attending committee meetings, it is part of the job. The fact that screwing around on reviews really messes with people's ability to get jobs and earn tenure makes this attitude all the more ridiculous. I really wish there was a way to tie journal reviews to the submission process. If you could only submit to journals that you actually complete quality reviews for, I suspect the diligence of reviewers would go up markedly.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Part of the p[roblem with the "professional responsibility" argument is that the balance of trade is very uneven. I generally review 4-5 times as many papers as I submit. So yes, I feel a little irked when editors become excessively demanding about the turn around time. But not as irked as when I get asked to review an R&R that I said should be rejected on the first round (fine to give it an R&R, but please find a new reviewer!!!!)
Posted 4 years ago # -
^and how many reviews do your papers take on average? At least 3 if you only went to 1 journal. If you get an R&R there, probably, no? But perhaps you get turned down at the first journal, then it's at least 6+...
Posted 4 years ago # -
I'm not including my own R&Rs or those of others. I get about 15-18 requests to review distinct manuscripts. Most of these requests come from journals to which I have never submitted.
Because there a multiple referees for each submission, I probably get from 6-9 referee reports back on my own papers each year. So at best, I'm getting one report for every two that I do.
Posted 4 years ago # -
-We have a job for life (assuming tenure).
-We have to be in the classroom 6 hours a week (say with a 2-2 load).
-We hold what, 2 office hours a week?
-We teach 30 weeks a year (at most, excluding summers which I'd venture a guess that most of us in research institutions don't do anyway). This leaves the vast majority of us with 22 weeks teaching-free.
-We get to travel to one or two big cities a year "for free", sometimes outside the US.
-Our office is a college campus!
-We have a bunch of people calling us "Dr.", "Professor," or some other self-aggrandizing title.
-We supervise theses on subjects we generally self-select into.
-We have to go to meetings, say, 2-3 hours a week (if that).
-We get lots of free books.
-Our colleagues are generally very smart people.
-We don't have a boss telling us to "work on this project and turn it in by 5PM on Friday."
-and the list goes on...And yet, we get ticked because a journal asks us to turn in a review within three weeks.
And they wonder why folks speak of "pineheads in the ivory tower" (or pick another Oreillyism).
Man I hate academics sometimes.
Posted 4 years ago # -
^ Well said.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"The fact of the matter is that if you are actively submitting your research to journals, it is your professional responsibility to review papers and part of that responsibility is reviewing in a timely manner."
This is the bottom line. There is no counter argument. End of story.
Posted 4 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.