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

1. Sociologist
   330b
   

   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?

   Yup, I’m trying to think of an R&R I’ve had that DIDN’T ask me to both add some stuff and reduce length. Coming up empty.

   You complain about it on Twitter and then you do it. That’s how this works.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 8 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

2. 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.
   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.

   Get real. What other journal will take a research note criticizing a Socius piece? That’s a long shot. Socius editors really look bad here.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !

3. Sociologist
   2a42
   

   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.
   Get real. What other journal will take a research note criticizing a Socius piece? That�s a long shot. Socius editors really look bad here.

   Why wouldn't a methods journal? Sociological Science?

   Or a lower tiered journal that publishes almost anything. It will still get published just not with the same status.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

4. Sociologist
   07b1
   

   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?
   Yup, I�m trying to think of an R&R I�ve had that DIDN�T ask me to both add some stuff and reduce length. Coming up empty.
   You complain about it on Twitter and then you do it. That�s how this works.

   My (limited) experience has been editors first ask you to respond to reviewers. After they (editors and reviewers) deem your responses satisfactory, then editors ask for a certain reduction in word count.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !

5. Sociologist
   e71a
   

   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.
   Get real. What other journal will take a research note criticizing a Socius piece? That?s a long shot. Socius editors really look bad here.
   Why wouldn't a methods journal? Sociological Science?
   Or a lower tiered journal that publishes almost anything. It will still get published just not with the same status.

   there's absolutely no way that a methods journal would publish this. Has this ever happened? SMR publishing a replication?

   Even the "low status" sociology journals have very low acceptance rates (below 10%) and reviewers still take you to task.

   I don't think there is any viable place for him to get this published.

   Look, the reality is that if it were a more banal topic it probably would have been published, and MABYE the article would have been pulled. It's just to hot a topic.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

Reply