• 2 years - 245 posts - Latest - RSS
• OP: 8 Goods vs 3 No Goods
• Thread: 1441 Goods vs 692 No Goods

1. Sociologist
   0cff
   

   Why does Socius, an online journal, care more about length of papers than the validity of the research it publishes?

   Because the Socius policy is for the editors to decide whether something gets published, and whether authors have responded to reviewer feedback (if applicable). Who knows what the reviewers on the original paper said. Maybe they did raise concerns. Maybe the guy who wrote the critique was one of the reviewers on the original paper. Maybe it was only "reviewed" by the editor.

   How can people who publish in this journal actually count it as a "peer reviewed" publication?

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 10 NO GOOD !

2. Sociologist
   d3e8
   

   The ego to not listen to editor feedback and still expect to get published. If I told my grad student to shorten a paper and they lengthened it...
   The screenshots didn't show exactly what was said. Did the editor explicitly say, "I know the reviewers ask you to add things, but overall you should shorten the piece despite that"? Otherwise, I don't see following the reviewers' suggestion as a reasonable basis for rejection.
   It�s here. �Frankly, these revisions seem not to have even been attempted��
   https://mobile.twitter.com/pylekeyton/status/1430271737854402571/photo/1
   No. This quote is from the rejection email. For those that do not understand how peer review works, authors receive reviewer reports prior to resubmitting in an invitation to revise and resubmit. The guy posted this all online: https://osf.io/m9p5k/
   Take a break from Twitter and have a look at the actual document: "We leave it to the author to decide exactly what they will keep and how they will re-organize the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments..."

   The same document says "A revised manuscript will need to be much reduced in form and more clearly identify the major issues the author wishes to address in the RPH article."
   He didn't do that. Why would they publish it?

   1 year ago # QUOTE 8 GOOD 7 NO GOOD !

3. Sociologist
   d3f4
   

   Why does Socius, an online journal, care more about length of papers than the validity of the research it publishes?
   Because the Socius policy is for the editors to decide whether something gets published, and whether authors have responded to reviewer feedback (if applicable). Who knows what the reviewers on the original paper said. Maybe they did raise concerns. Maybe the guy who wrote the critique was one of the reviewers on the original paper. Maybe it was only "reviewed" by the editor.
   How can people who publish in this journal actually count it as a "peer reviewed" publication?

   This is common (not universal) in speedy journals, including many health journals, PNAS, etc. it’s peer reviewed because there are peer reviewers, not because editors never step in to make the final call.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 7 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !

4. Sociologist
   461c
   

   Did anyone on here even read the reviewer reports or the response memo?

   1 year ago # QUOTE 9 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

5. Sociologist
   d163
   

   Did anyone on here even read the reviewer reports or the response memo?

   The editors put the author in an impossible situation. They wanted the paper shortened and wanted all the review comments addressed. Language and tone aside, these suggestions seem mutually exclusive and give the editor a reason to reject regardless of what the author pursues.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 13 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !

6. Sociologist
   c34a
   

   Did anyone on here even read the reviewer reports or the response memo?

   The reviews both said that the comment makes clear that there were serious problems with the original paper. It sounds to me like the editors then rejected the comment for aesthetic reasons like length and tone.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 13 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

7. Sociologist
   3dd0
   

   Did anyone on here even read the reviewer reports or the response memo?
   The reviews both said that the comment makes clear that there were serious problems with the original paper. It sounds to me like the editors then rejected the comment for aesthetic reasons like length and tone.

   At a journal that prides itself of having no length requirements lol this is so transparent people ...

   Are the editors the ones on here bending over backwards to pretend like this was about the length of the article? Come on.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 9 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

8. Sociologist
   f29b
   

   Are the editors the ones on here bending over backwards to pretend like this was about the length of the article? Come on.

   It’s probably Gullickson. He’s posted in sjmr before.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

9. Sociologist
   11fc
   

   Socius has a scientific responsibility to clean up its messes. The Rosigno paper has serious flaws, at least some of which they probably should have detected. If fixing this mess means doing a second R&R with the author to get length and tone to be what they want it to be, so be it.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 12 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

10. Sociologist
    f29b
    

    Socius has a scientific responsibility to clean up its messes. The Rosigno paper has serious flaws, at least some of which they probably should have detected. If fixing this mess means doing a second R&R with the author to get length and tone to be what they want it to be, so be it.

    Yeah, you go to war with the army you have. This kid clearly needs extra handholding, but he is the one cleaning up your mess for you, so....

    1 year ago # QUOTE 6 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

11. Sociologist
    4af5
    

    Editors always make the final call.

    There's also nothing here that says "cov/er/ up" - they received a paper. Did not de/sk rej/ect it. Sent it out for peer review. After comments, they did not re/ject the paper. Gave it an R&R. Author did not respond to comments adequately in the editors' view (which is ALWAYS the case in any kind of peer review journal - that is the editor's job). Then it was rejected.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 6 GOOD 11 NO GOOD !

12. Sociologist
    f29b
    

    Editors always make the final call.
    There's also nothing here that says "cov/er/ up" - they received a paper. Did not de/sk rej/ect it. Sent it out for peer review. After comments, they did not re/ject the paper. Gave it an R&R. Author did not respond to comments adequately in the editors' view (which is ALWAYS the case in any kind of peer review journal - that is the editor's job). Then it was rejected.

    Non/sense. The faulty paper they published is not getting criticized, because...trivial excuses about hiding behind process.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 7 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

13. Sociologist
    c34a
    

    If the original paper had a non-pc result like the reg/nerus paper soc twitter would be calling for gullicksons head

    1 year ago # QUOTE 11 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

14. Sociologist
    a38c
    

    If the original paper had a non-pc result like the reg/nerus paper soc twitter would be calling for gullicksons head

    His head?! Impossible. That man neck fatter than Jabba The Hut

    1 year ago # QUOTE 19 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

15. Sociologist
    bd46
    

    If the original paper had a non-pc result like the reg/nerus paper soc twitter would be calling for gullicksons head
    His head?! Impossible. That man neck fatter than Jabba The Hut

    This is the truth I come here to discover. Good work sociology rumors.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

16. Sociologist
    2f16
    

    If the original paper had a non-pc result like the reg/nerus paper soc twitter would be calling for gullicksons head
    His head?! Impossible. That man neck fatter than Jabba The Hut

    True statement. But the girth of his neck has nothing to do with the fact that he bent over backwards to reject a critique that would have made his buddies look bad.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

17. Sociologist
    de3b
    

    Econ bro here. I really don't understand the issue here. Sociology journals publish bul//ls**t all the time. This is in keeping with the reputation of the discipline. Big deal, we all know sociology is a joke. The real question is why did this dude think anyone would care?

    1 year ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 8 NO GOOD !

18. Sociologist
    2088
    

    His head?! Impossible. That man neck fatter than Jabba The Hut

    Be nice! Dude probably hasn't seen his own D since high school. Got an editorial position at a sh/ite journal now. Give him a chance to get right on all them insecurities before passing judgement.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

19. Sociologist
    d358
    

    Did anyone on here even read the reviewer reports or the response memo?
    The editors put the author in an impossible situation. They wanted the paper shortened and wanted all the review comments addressed. Language and tone aside, these suggestions seem mutually exclusive and give the editor a reason to reject regardless of what the author pursues.

    That's called peer review. Have you never run into that before?

    1 year ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

20. Sociologist
    d358
    

    Editors always make the final call.
    There's also nothing here that says "cov/er/ up" - they received a paper. Did not de/sk rej/ect it. Sent it out for peer review. After comments, they did not re/ject the paper. Gave it an R&R. Author did not respond to comments adequately in the editors' view (which is ALWAYS the case in any kind of peer review journal - that is the editor's job). Then it was rejected.
    Non/sense. The faulty paper they published is not getting criticized, because...trivial excuses about hiding behind process.

    How is the paper not getting criticized? The author wrote a paper, it went through peer review. He posted it on SocArXiv and seems to not want to submit it elsewhere.

    It's getting criticized. It could get published at another journal - maybe not the same ASA affiliation or equivalent status. But the author doesn't want to.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !

Reply »