Old American Job Rumors
posted by American and Comparative Politics Job Blog at 1/30/2007 07:43:00 AM
American and Comparative Jobs
Hello bloggers! As requested, I have turned off comment moderation. But, if it becomes a personal free-for-all I will ask someone else to manage the blog because I do not have time to devote to continuously deleting comments.
776 Comments:
To expand on the Grand Valley State rumor, they are contacting their short list to see who is still available. They meet this Friday to decide on an interview list, and expect to have approval sometime late next week or early the following week to invite folks in.
My understanding is that they made at least one offer that was declined earlier round.
Re: 8:17. Yes, they did have at least 2 declined offers and it is round 2 for GVSU. - 8:14
Humboldt State is conducting interviews this week and next week. They expect to make a decision quickly, by the end of next week or the following week.
Has anyone received an invitation to interview for the APSA Congressional Fellowship? I received the "we've received your application" email but nothing since. Just wondering what the status is.
howabout a new game?
guess the identity of this celebrity political scientist's iTunes top 25 playlist. double points if you recognize it as your own and out yourself.
I Want To Hold Your Hand, The Beatles
Like Eating Glass, Bloc Party
Helicopter, Bloc Party
Positive Tension, Bloc Party
This Modern Love, Bloc Party
There Goes The Fear, Doves
Can't Stand Me Now, The Libertines
Last Post On The Bugle, The Libertines
September Gurls, Big Star
Yellow, Coldplay
A Design for Life, Manic Street Preachers
The Eton Rifles, The Jam
Try Again, Aaliyah
Good vibrations, Beach boys
God Only Knows, The Beach Boys
Get Up Stand Up, Bob Marley
Windowlicker, Aphex Twin
Strawberry Fields Forever, Beatles
Penny Lane, Beatles
Respect, Aretha Franklin
In the Ghetto, Elvis Presley
Arbeit Macht Frei, The Libertines
Sub-Mission, Pistols
My Life Is Right, Big Star
(gotta love iTunes sharing)
my g-d, I hope it's no one I know. that's horrid.
Greg Wawro
Not Wawro....no surf music & nothing in French.
Chris Zorn
Michael Ting Rocks!
3:33: Thanks for reminding me why I don't have ITunes sharing enabled on my computer at work.
B*tch, please...
It's not mine.
(And whoever thinks I'm a "celebrity" needs a life...).
my g-d, I hope it's no one I know. that's horrid.
****
Now that's stupid. Libertines, Bloc Party, Big Star...they're great. The first decent thing ever posted on this blog.
oh that song list has GOT to be from Branislav Slanchtev at UCSD
Screw iTunes list!! I want political scientists that can do it for themselves.
http://www.jeffspoemsforkids.com/s4.php?id=4
jeff, why did you put up a link to your poems?
He has a poem called "That Awful Falafel Waffle."
That's just awesome.
Has TX State-San Marcos contacted any candidates beyond the email to those who made it past the initial round of reviews?
Also, any iTunes playlist that doesn't feature at least one song by Pearl Jam can only be considered mediocre at best.
Grunge. Yawn.
Any word on schools in the Dallas area? SMU? North Texas?
Much better info on many jobs here: http://haterfreeraceandpolitics.blogspot.com/
Re: North Texas; I'm pretty sure it's been reported that the methods and American institutions (Congress?) jobs are filled... I think I got a rejection letter for the former, but I really don't remember/care at this point.
I think SMU has an offer out in judicial.
"Also, any iTunes playlist that doesn't feature at least one song by Pearl Jam can only be considered mediocre at best."
Whatever happened to Eddie Vedder and the Pearl Jams? Are they still around?
Pearl Jam had a new album about 10 months ago that was hailed as a 'return to form' (meaning it sounded like their early '90s stuff, not the more recent boring-and-sludgy records).
Does anyone know what happened with the search at Boston University?
Greatest live band ever? FISHBONE
http://wikihost.org/wikis/polsci0607
According to the wiki, Erika Franklin Fowler (ABD, UW-Madison) accepted Wesleyan's offer. This corresponds with a rumor I heard a few weeks back, but wasn't sure about the foundation of it.
Great job, Erika. I had been looking for her name on the boards, as she was a very strong candidate this year. Yet more evidence that lots of activity goes on without getting posted.
She is terrific!
Sarcasm was fairly predictible there.
Anyone know if Elon has started interviews?
11:28: Story I heard is that they had one candidate in a while back, but they plan to interview others in the coming few weeks. Not sure if that means the first candidate is out of the running or what.
Elon is bringing in one more candidate, then will make a decision. The reason for the delay is, as I mentioned on the other thread, the chair was out of the country during January. Everyone is still in the running.
What's the latest on Texas State - San Marcos?
Marquette made an offer to Azari, a Yale ABD, which was accepted
Can someone explain why the bulk of the changes in the wiki seem to have been made by someone in Germany?!?!?! At least that's what I got when tracking down the IP's.
People are updating the wiki via anonymous proxy (Anonymouse.org is the proxy service).
Maybe chill e. punk is from Germany
http://www.indiana.edu/~mpsa/
mpsa/jobs.html
why would you be tracking IPs in the first place?
What's the latest on Georgia State? Offer out?
Fixed-term Research Fellowship in Quantitative Political Science
Department Of Politics And International Relations
University of Oxford
http://jobs.ac.uk/jobfiles/
XB504.html
Prediction: Colts 28 Bears 24
Bears 37, Colts 10
Colts 29, Bears 17.
That's a post-diction. (I'm a political scientist. The rest of you are mere gamblers or speculators.)
Did UNC make any offers this year for their Methods opening?
Until a couple of weeks ago, UNC had not make any offers for their Methods position. Unless something changed recently, no offer will be made this year. Or so the rumor went here (graduate student at UNC).
Good read (especially for Comparativists, but for Americanists too):
http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/
~rosenbap/heteroReprint.pdf
Looks like SPAM to me. . . .
UNC Wilmington is bringing in people for interviews the next two weeks.
I heard John Jay has made a decision
On his Treaty?
John Jay made a decision a while ago. I interviewed there and was told over break that they chose someone else.
Norwich University (Vermont) is setting up phone interviews.
Chris Dolan has accepted an offer from Lebanon Valley College. He is leaving UCF.
Has TX State - San Marcos narrowed down their "email" short list?
http://wikihost.org/wikis/polsci0607
2/01/2007 8:32 AM
With the existence of the new wiki page, this blog becomes redundant, doesn't it? Shouldn't the blog be killed to avoid all the personal attacks and dammaging postings?
If that's the general sentiment, let the market do the talking... no need to shut it down from above.
Does James Madison plan on bringing more people in?
I agree. Each to his own. Both can coexist.
Does James Madison plan on bringing more people in?
-----------------
I'm pretty sure they made an offer to someone. Did they have multiple positions?
According to the wiki page, they made multiple offers, but the offers were declined. I was curious if that was accurate and, if so, whether they planned to go back to their applicant pool.
I know of at least two offers James Madison extended that were declined (they had advertised at least 3 openings in AP though). I don't know what they are doing at this point.
Question: What is the typical starting salary for a 1st year Assistant Professor at a school like GMU, Georgetown, GWU or American?
Or, if there is considerable variance across these schools, can you give me a sense of the range of variation?
I'm a grad student who would love to end up in the DC area.
You do realize how stacked the odds are against you finding a job at one of those places, I hope. In the current job market, it's hard enough to get a job in any specific region. DC is even tougher because lots of people (including me) would love to live there. On the plus side, there's a gazillion good non-academic jobs you could pursue if you're willing to go that route.
Having said all of that, I have no idea about the pay at any of those schools...sorry!
I don't have information specific to those schools, though, from having been in the market last year (now employed at a top 20 Dept), my GUESSTIMATE is that none of those Departments (not even Georgetown, which I assume is the wealthier of those) can afford to pay over 70k, maybe 72k tops (and in all likelihood less), to a 1st year Assistant. Which means a rather low salary in real terms.
>> I'm a grad student who would love to end up in the DC area.
My advice, which is not intended to be rude: focus on your dissertation and not on salaries. If you wind up getting a job in your dream location you can be very happy that your dream came true.
Somes that happens -- I'm actually one of the lucky ones whose dreams did come true. But mainly it doesn't.
Well, I have a family, so I want to see whether it's even worth starting to build connections etc with people in the area.
1:24: It's worth building the connections whether or not you have a shot of getting a job there... the bigger your network, the better, unless you're a complete ass who just annoys everyone you meet.
Also I wouldn't forget about Maryland (or, for that matter, CUA or UDC or other places, if geography trumps status in your mind).
Rumor: Zorn to Penn State
^ Seems implausible to me; he just got to South Carolina.
Now if PSU ever loses De Boef (if the efforts to make De Boef -> tOSU ever bear fruit), I could see them throwing money at someone like Zorn to avoid reverting to being a methods non-entity.
Georgetown probably pays below 70 for a first year assistant.
My perception of DC pay: UMD > GW > Georgetown > American > George Mason/Catholic/etc.
Zorn and his wife interviewed at Penn State.
DC schools don't pay NEAR what you would think, given the cost of living.
RE: DC. GMU salaries are posted online. I won't post the link here, however. It is my sense that they represent the floor for the DC area, so you can assume that other places pay somewhat more. However, the general sentiments here are correct: none of the DC schools pay enough to actually live anywhere interesting. That said, there are opportunities for supplementing your salary with consulting opportunities and whatnot.
>> I'm a grad student who would love to end up in the DC area.
>> Also I wouldn't forget about Maryland (or, for that matter, CUA or UDC or other places, if geography trumps status in your mind).
Okay, I am going to assume that the reference to Maryland is reminding the person that it is close to DC, not trying to imply that it is to be grouped with Catholic or UDC in terms of status.
2:18: Yes, the stuff in parentheses should be parsed with the other stuff in parentheses. This is English Comprehension 101.
I'd even argue that Maryland (College Park) is the best political science department in the DC area. Although maybe that stems in part from a negative undergrad experience at another R1 in the area...
Who got the loyola marymount job?
RE: academic salaries in the DC area, they do tend to be fairly low. No PS Department there pays in the upper range of the discipline in nominal terms - let alone in real terms.
It is no accident that DC departments attract people who want to become policy wonks. For them, their actual academic salary is not that important - they know they will complement it with consulting, media, etc.
It is also no accident, if I may say, that none of those Departments are particularly strong. (Of course, each of those Departments does have VERY good faculty memebers).
GW and Maryland are comparable and are clearly the best departments in the DC area. Both good political science departments that are getting better. Both are also young. The real issue is whether these departments can retain the very good faculty they have. Earlier rumors this year and last say GW faculty have been targetted by superior departments.
Augustana College sent out rejection letters.
Kent State will not be hiring this year. They will search again next year.
DePauw University just posted a 1 year position. Department seems to think it will become TT after this year, pending funding of course.
Why won't anybody goddamn hire me? Aaarrrrgh! F*ck you all!!! Aaaa-hahahaha!
Oops. Sorry. Let that one slip.
Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh, of course, if you take the Chronicle as a guide, DC payscales look more like Georgetown> GW> American> Everywhere else.
Also, 2/01/2007 7:47am should be given an endowed chair.
-Seacrest out.
Why do find it appropriate to spell out G-D, but not the F-bomb? Both demonstrate an equal lack of class and character, which may actually answer your initial question.
Why would anyone spell god with a hyphen?
Oh my, this discussion is make me long for George Gonzalez.
well, Gonzalez is having trouble since his primary publishing outlet, the UM blog - got shut down
Can't speak for everyone, but for some observant Jews, not spelling out the name of the diety, even in translation, is a form of recognition of the diety's ineffability and the incapacity of the human mind to grasp her/his/its awesomeness.
Though perhaps f*cking is as ineffable and awesome for others.
I believe the hyphen in G-D is not due to the lack of a desire to spell out god. It probably just separates the first word of the phrase from the second.
Anyway, can we get back to actual rumors?
It's rumored that G-d was turned down for tenure at my alma mater.
must have been University Miami - their standard is two more articels than you have
Rumor: Zorn to Penn State
2/07/2007 3:38 PM
Check the wiki.
Question: What is the typical starting salary for a 1st year Assistant Professor at a school like GMU, Georgetown, GWU or American?
Mid 50s to just over 60.
Much less variation than you'd assume.
Hey, whatever happened to that crazy Miami blog?
I miss the soap opera that was that disfunctional department and its crackpot chair!
I heard a rumor that John Aldrich was giving a talk at Miami.....
aldrich is doing a review
Yes.
I can only imagine what the external review of Miami will look like.
From the text of the external review:
"among political science departments housed in business schools, it's clearly one of the best"
"faculty are commended for adding a link to the webpage entitled 'hire a present Miami junior faculty member'"
more from the Miami external review:"last one out, respectfully turn off the lights"
I heard they might lose as many as 4 of the six junior faculty - it sounds like the administration may just start over once the self-destruction is complete. The chair should consult with one of those psychics he writes about and see how big the faculty will be come fall.
Neal Tate is also heading to UM to do an informal external review - whoa Nellie - that man can swing a bat - the nut jobs in charge of that department might be in for a rude awakening - I've heard 2 juniors have offers (one accepted)at great places and more are in play to move
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wendy Watson to SMU
Was Watson at North Texas?
Yes, Watson was/is at UNT.
Re Miami:
They have already lost one to Stony Brook. My friend there tells me that at least three others have interviews or offers outstanding according to my sources.
How many faculty members does Miami(FL) have? Their website does not seem to list the faculty.
5:47
http://www2.bus.miami.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=544&Itemid=717
i cannot monitor the blog except once or twice a day, so please stop making comments that you know will be deleted. i dont care who they are about and what your "evidence" is for your claims. if it does not refer to an interview that someone might have or an offer that someone has been given or accepted, then DONT POST. If you dont like such rules, get your own blog. this is exactly why the IR rumor mill doesnt post anything until it has been approved by them. i dont have time to check the blog except twice a day so that doesnt seem an option.
If you thought we were nasty in American Politics... go and see what the Race and Politics people are capable of. I think we have clearly underestimated their field.
I've heard rumors of interview/offers for 4 of the junior faculty at Miami - I think that would leave them with only 2 juniors next year - as Bush might say- heckuva job
Cuaght my attention...from the american jobs table blog:
----------------------------
Which poli sci PhD schools produce the most productive assistant professors in American politics?
To identify young scholars worthy of praise for their productivity, I have identified all assistant professors w/ PhDs received in 2005 or earlier in the field of American politics that are productive, as defined by publishing > or = 1 publication per year in the assisting professors database (not controlling for quality/top 3 pubs or coauthorship—-if someone else wants to do this they can). I limited the list to only those assistant professors with “American” listed in the FIELD category of the assisting profs data and who received their PhDs in 2005 or earlier (2006, 2007, ABD excluded as these are too recent to judge productivity over time).
The following poli sci PhD programs yielded the following “productive” graduates that are publishing at least 1 publication per year. These are the “top 66” assistant professors in American politics as measured by SSCI productivity, by PhD-granting school:
5 productive assistant professors produced by:
Michigan – 5 (Scott Allard, Matthew Beckmann, Cindy Kam, Tasha Philpot, Ismail White)
UNC – 5 (Brian Fogarty, Luke Keele, Nathan Kelly, Whitt Kilburn, Jennifer Wolak)
4 productive assistant professors produced by:
Stanford Poli Sci – 4 (Joshua Clinton, Jennifer Lawless, David Lewis, Sean Theriault)*
UC-Berkeley Poli Sci – 4 (Jake Bowers, John McNulty, Megan Mullin, John Sides)**
3 productive assistant professors produced by:
Duke – 3 (Jeffrey Grynaviski, Anthony McGann, Jason Reifler)
Illinois – 3 (Michael Cobb, Jeffery Jenkins, Jennifer Jerit)
Michigan State – 3 (Chris Bonneau, Jamie Carson, Michael Crespin)
Yale – 3 (Matthew Green, David Nickerson, Janelle Wong)
2 productive assistant professors produced by:
Harvard – 2 (Christopher Adolph, David Campbell)
Northwestern – 2 (Jason Barabas, Brandon Rottinghaus)
Rice – 2 (Kevin Arceneaux, Martin Johnson)
Rochester – 2 (Christian Grose, Antoine Yoshinaka)
UCLA Poli Sci – 2 (Benjamin Bishin, Monika McDermott)***
UC-San Diego – 2 (Erik Engstrom, Justin Phillips)
Wash U. – 2 (Scott McClurg , Jason Roberts)
Wisconsin – 2 (Rodolfo Espino, Travis Ridout)
1 productive assistant professors produced by:
Arizona – 1 (Gabriel Sanchez); Chicago – 1 (Michael Heaney); Colorado – 1 (Cherie Maestas); Georgia – 1 (Thad Hall); Indiana – 1 (Brian Schaffner); Kansas – 1 (Curtis Wood); Kentucky – 1 (Neal Woods); Maryland – 1 (Atiya Stokes-Brown); Minnesota – 1 (Eric Lawrence); North Texas - 1 (Linda Camp Keith); NYU – 1 (Marisa Abrajano); Oxford – 1 (Ernesto Dal Bo)
Pittsburgh – 1 (Paul Goren); SUNY Binghamton – 1 (Paul Collins); Texas A&M – 1 (Sean Nicholson-Crotty); Texas – 1 (Brian Brox); UC-Irvine – 1 (Matt Barreto)
Any poli sci PhD program not listed above has not produced an assistant professor (PhD 2005 or earlier) with > 1 pub per year.
*This includes only Stanford poli sci PhDs. Including Alan Wiseman (GSB) and Markus Prior (Communications), the # of productive Stanford PhDs increases to 6.
**This includes only UC-B poli sci PhDs. Including Anna Kirkland (Jurispudence and Social Policy), the # of productive UC-B PhDs increases to 5.
***This includes only UCLA poli sci PhDs. Including Matias Iaryczower, Economics and Christopher Federico, Psychology), the # of productive UCLA PhDs increases to 4.
Interestingly, if we use this as a proxy for ranking departments, the expected departments come up on top (e.g., Michigan, Stanford, Berkeley), but there are a few reputationally top schools that are not on the list at all (e.g. Ohio State, Princeton).
Any thoughts from the blogosphere?
And weighted by PhD-granting department:
---------------------------
The following lists the poli sci departments yielding the highest percentage of productive faculty, as defined by the % of asst profs in the assisting profs database that have > or = to 1 publication per year.
IMPORTANT ADDITION: I mistakenly neglected to include Ryan Claassen (PhD, UC-Davis) in the earlier post, who should have been included in the list of most productive assistant profs in the 4:58 post, and Claassen is added here.
[...snip...]
It may be useful to exclude those programs that have very few total placed faculty. Excluding poli sci PhD programs that have placed 2 or less faculty, the list of PhD poli sci programs based on the % of productive assistant professors each program graduates:
(1) UNC 83.3% (5 out of 6)
(2) Rice 66.7% (2 out of 3)
(3-tie) Illinois 50% (3 out of 6)
(3-tie) UCLA 50% (2 out of 4)
(5-tie) Wash U. 40% (2 out of 5)
(5-tie) Wisconsin 40% (2 out of 5)
(7-tie) Duke 37.5% (3 out of 8)
(7-tie) Michigan State 37.5% (3 out of 8)
(9) Stanford 36.4% (4 out of 11)
(10-tie) Arizona 33.3% (1 out of 3)
(10-tie) Georgia 33.3% (1 out of 3)
(10-tie) Rochester 33.3% (2 out of 6)
(10-tie) Yale 33.3% (3 out of 9)
(14) Michigan 29.4% (5 out of 17)
(15-tie) UCBerkeley 28.6% (4 out of 14)
(15-tie) UCSD 28.6 (2 out of 7)
(17-tie) Chicago 25% (1 out of 4)
(17-tie) Minnesota 25% (1 out of 4)
(17-tie) Texas-Austin 25% (1 out of 4)
(20) Harvard 22.2% (2 out of 9)
(21) Indiana 14.3% (1 out of 7)
(22) Texas A&M 12.5% (1 out of 8)
(23-tie) CalTech, 0% (0 out of 3)
(23-tie) Emory, 0% (0 out of 4)
(23-tie) Ohio State, 0% (0 out of 9)
(23-tie) Princeton, 0% (0 out of 7)
(23-tie) SUNY Stony Brook, 0% (0 out of 5)
(23-tie) Washington, 0% (0 out of 4)
It's reasonable to make general claims that a scholar is productive based on 1 article per year publication. It may also be useful to consider that (1) these rankings do not consider books, as already mentioned and (2) dividing workload by number of years in which a scholar has a PhD is problematical for producing a productivity index of junior scholars.
An easy example is the assistant professor who received his PhD in early 2002 versus someone who receved his PhD in late 2002. Presumably the former would have more time to work on articles than the latter but the latter is counted the same as the former.
Additionally, what about the several who did not land a tenure-track position right out of graduate school? Visiting positions are likely to take away from an otherwise "productive" record. This is not accounted for. Further, what about the individual who took a tenure track position in, say 2004, but did not finish until 2005? This delay in graduating could be for logistical reasons (committee scheduling, for example) and little else. In other words, this person perhaps *should* be considered a 2004 PhD but for the productivity index is considered a 2005 PhD.
Not that anyone would do this (I hope!) but if one wished to maximize his or her productivity ranking, one would only have to delay the year in which he or she received a PhD.
Overall, I think this is a nice index of productivity. But, alas, no index is perfect and some alternative calculations of when productivity begins would help these rankings all the more.
Using 1 publication per year is a rather screwy way to define productivity. Any 2006 PhD who published in grauduate school would be productive by that definition. More than 30 people on the list have 2005 or 2006 PhDs. What we really want to know is how productive students are over the longer term and when they are out from under their dissertation advisors.
....More than 30 people on the list have 2005 or 2006 PhDs....
-----------------
This is incorrect. The list excludes 2006, 2007, and ABD PhDs for exactly this reason.
I'm interested in the other end of the scale. A few of the assistants on the list have been so a *long* time; in the meantime, the most productive Ph.D.s from (say) 1997-2001 have, for the most part, already been tenured (and so are not on the list). (A few 1996-7-8 Ph.Ds have made full, or are doing so now).
And, of course, 1 Political Behavior or APR article != 1 AJPS or APSR article. If we weigh an AJPS piece, say, 1.5 I imagine the list would change, and in particular a lot of the top 10 departments would look a lot better.
(23-tie) Ohio State, 0% (0 out of 9)
____________________
wtf?
Any new rumors?
Did South Florida move yet?
wtf?
---------------------
To some degree, tOSU is hurt by the definition of who is in and who is out of the data set. My colleague Tobin Grant (tOSU grad) isn't included because he's an associate. However, he went up for tenure early so he's technically in the age cohort of the list that's been provided.
This seems like a useful exercise for a research design class -- a good opportunity to highlight what measurement error is in quantitative analysis.
Nevertheless, it provides for interesting discussion.
More problems:
Selection bias - if a school places its grads badly enough, they don't get counted at all. To move up the rankings it would be better to place a non-productive assistant at a bad school.
Dichotmizing a continuous variable - quality/not. This is the most simplistic way to judge an assistant professor since tenure was invented.
the reality is that putting together that list likely took the list-producer a long time. if you think you have a way to do it better, then do it. he/she has provided you with a great starting point, albeit likely flawed in numerous ways. i would hope no one uses that list for more than it was intended. that's what coding concerns are all about and scott is right, a research class would be great to improve the list, for their own benefit and for the discipline.
i think the idea that books are just as good as articles is just as relative as saying one article is equivalent to another article in terms of journal prestige. the reality is that a lot of presses do not require peer review. so, if i know that my project would never get published by a top three journal why not get a book out of it.
I am not even sure THAT list is better than no list.
Where are these university presses that do not require peer review? Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? It's not a walk in the park to get a book accepted by a top press any more than to get an article accepted by a top journal. And there are PLENTY of bottom feeder journals out there too.
To some degree, tOSU is hurt by the definition of who is in and who is out of the data set. My colleague Tobin Grant (tOSU grad) isn't included because he's an associate. However, he went up for tenure early so he's technically in the age cohort of the list that's been provided.
-------------------
This is a good point, and the person who constructed the list noted that the # of placements in PhD programs was also an indicator of quality. The fact OSU has 9 placements, Princeton 7, etc. indicates their quality over schools w/ only 2 or 3 assistant professors. If I were a graduate student, I would want to consider (1) # of placements in PhD programs (relative to size of program); (2) productivity of program's graduates (a proxy for training in grad school?); (3) and the productivity of top 3/top subfield articles of a program's graduates.
Someone has provided us with (1) and (2) above, and we should weight the two as positive indicators of program quality.
Regarding the journals in SSCI not picking up enough journals, there are a multiplicity of journals open to a number of scholars. Of course, the big 3: APSR, AJPS, JOP. Also, quite a few journals spanning general and subfield specific categories: BJPS, JTP, Law & Society, JLEO, Jrnl of Law and Econ, Political Behavior, LSQ, Electoral Studies, PRQ (but not Presidential Studies Quarterly, so there may be a bias against prez. scholars in the list)
Having said that, anyone want to do a Nolan score version of the same list and we could address the quality of article placement and books too, somehow weighted by year. But that would take a long time, and this initial productivity back-of-the-envelope measure probably took a long time to do too.
Not to mention that you'd probably want to weight each publication for "impact" -- maybe by using citation counts.
It will take a lot of work to obtain a more fine-grained (and useful) measure.
for the record, can you name those book presses that dont require peer review?
Because I am a geek, I put the assisting politics data into STATA. My IV's are simply years since PhD and the US News ranking of the school they are working at (no similar ranking of PhD institution here). Two DV's: 1) number of publications; 2) number of publications in the top 3 (APSR, AJPS, JOP).
Years since Phd are significantly related to both. Working at a 'better' (according to US News) is not significantly correlated with # pubs overall. Interestingly, there is a NEGATIVE and significant (p=.02) between ranking of the institution and publications in the top 3.
And that negative sign will go away once you control for journal quality.
Not STATA, it's Stata.
...there is a NEGATIVE and significant (p=.02) between ranking of the institution and publications in the top 3.
--------
Kudos to this quick analysis. And 7:34am, journal quality has already been controlled for. Read closely "in the top 3" in the last sentence above.
Could it be that some of the top departments, where tenure is close to impossible, no longer attract the best young scholars? Can you detect some nonlinearities there?
"The fact OSU has 9 placements, Princeton 7, etc. indicates their quality over schools w/ only 2 or 3 assistant professors. If I were a graduate student, I would want to consider (1) # of placements in PhD programs (relative to size of program)"
Program size is a crucial variable for explaining the simple numbers of PhDs out there in faculty positions. Perhaps that, more than "quality" explains this difference.
I have a paper that I am sending out this week, which is of "high quality". Colleagues have suggested to me that I send it to JOP. However, I have also been considering sending it QJPS. (This papr would be appropriate for both journals and audiences.) What would be the best call here? Is QJPS going to count for something good on my vita?
Go for the JOP first. If it doesnt get in, try elsewhere. JOP will count for a lot more.
I am a geek too, so I did some regressions as well. I broke down the results by sub-field and also included gender (women=1).
DV(1): Number of publications.
Results:
no pubs = .12(years with phd) + .59(american) + .43(IR) + .47(comparative) + (rankings, no effect) - .43(gender).
Baseline field is theory/methods.
The sub-fields look similar. Rankings have no bearing on # pubs. Disturbingly, women publish less.
DV(2): no pubs in the top 3.
pubstop3 = .09(years w/PHD) + 1.39 (American) + .54(IR) + .71(comparative) - .12(ranking) - .50(gender).
American does better at pubs in the top3. Ranking is negatively related to pubs in the top 3 (wow!). Gender is again negative.
Talk it over...
[reviewer]
Of course, the DV is a count so you should really be doing Poissons or ZIPs or negative binomials.
[/reviewer]
2/12/2007 8:50 AM:
Could you add another variable as IV in the Top3 regression - "Publications outside top3"? Just to see whether there is a relationship between publishing in top journals and publishing elsewhere? And one could probably add a binary variable for "book."
Sorry to be unclear, it was a poisson.
I also added number outside the top 3. It is positive and significant. The more you publish, the more likely you are to get a top 3. All other results remain the same.
Me again. Books have no relationship to # articles in the top 3. Books are positively related to number of publications. There are people who are publishing lots (books and articles) and lots of people who are doing nothing at all. All other results unchanged.
Colleagues have suggested to me that I send it to JOP. However, I have also been considering sending it QJPS. (This papr would be appropriate for both journals and audiences.) What would be the best call here?
If it's relatively advanced quantitative work, QJPS would be a good place. Not as good as JOP because people are not as familiar with it. But other people who do your kind of work will see it in QJPS and know it got through a tough review (probably tougher than JOP, on the quant side).
JOP has gotten a lot better in recent years -- really closed the gap with AJPS. No doubt a JOP is better than QJPS at this point but that's largely because of visibility and what senior people expect. QJPS review quality and hurdle are probably at least as high as JOP.
Agreed. Although the typical QJPS article is more narrow (substance and method), at least right now. We'll see if the editors succeed in broadening the journal while maintaining its rigor.
'more narrow'
I think that's what happens when you don't argue beyond your model and data.
Didn't mean it as a slam. I only meant to suggest that QJPS articles look like JLEO articles right now. Fine, technically sound articles, but ones that appeal to a select group within Political Science. JOP is broader in that respect. This could simply mean that QJPS will be a journal that caters to a different clientele than JOP, which would be fine.
If you look at the range of papers in JOP recently, it looks like the AJPS from the pre-Hill/Leighley days.
The empirical work in QJPS is a fair bit more advanced than what appears in JLEO, in my estimation. Also the topics are a bit broader in that they span the subfields of polisci and don't focus on American institutions as much (which is JLEO's focus).
If you look at the range of papers in JOP recently, it looks like the AJPS from the pre-Hill/Leighley days.
Totally agree. It's a breath of fresh air. Hill and Leighley were terrible for AJPS.
How many of the current published QJPS articles could have gotten published in one of the Big 3?
Has the AJPS's turnaround gotten slower under the current editorship? Just wondering if my slow review is part of a general pattern or if I'm just the lucky one...
Totally agree. It's a breath of fresh air. Hill and Leighley were terrible for AJPS.
2/12/2007 11:43 AM
---------
Also agree. And yet, they were better than Stewart. [Shudder.]
AJPS reviews are extremely slow lately.
That aside I think the jury's still out on Stewart's editorial guidance. Haven't seen enough of her issues.
i am happy to see discussions like these, here or elsewhere. I wish also that people used the poitical science journal monitor more. I think it could be a great tool if everyone shared more information on it. As for what I have seen, I will not submit to AJPS or PRQ right now bc of rediculous wait times. For american JOP, APR, SSQ, have very fast and efficient waits. I have yet to submit to QJPS.
Does the new AJPS team ever tell you what they decide to do with the paper you reviewed? I reviewed something for them last fall and never anything afterwards.
JOP is a model of quick turnarounds and efficient reviews, in my experience as an author and reviewer.
Sorry, that should have said, "never heard anything afterwards".
AJPS doesn't tell you anything if you're the reviewer. I thought I killed a really bad piece, got it back in R&R form (even though it looked like the other reviewers killed it, too). I wrote another negative review, but the manuscript is out now. Go figure. I'll never review for them again until there is a new editorship. The quality is way down, especially in non-American fields.
Rumor: Buffalo made an offer to Battista.
AJPS doesn't tell you anything if you're the reviewer. I thought I killed a really bad piece, got it back in R&R form (even though it looked like the other reviewers killed it, too). I wrote another negative review, but the manuscript is out now. Go figure. I'll never review for them again until there is a new editorship. The quality is way down, especially in non-American fields.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I had the same exact experience. To make matters worse, the response memo was condescening about my review. Hint to new PhDs -- do not be condescening to a reviewer who wants to reject you. Bad, bad idea.
FWIW, the paper deserved to be rejected on its merits. If it had been a close call, I'm not sure I could keep my irritation at their attitude out of my review.
How many of the current published QJPS articles could have gotten published in one of the Big 3?
Maybe 1/4 to 1/3. 2/5 tops.
2/5 is too high. 1/3 maybe.
For context, how many papers in the APSR/AJPS/JOP would have been successful at the other two? Maybe half? I actually think less.
The question is not as obvious as it seems. How many could have gotten into the AJPS under Hill and Leighley? Zero of the formal papers. And given their technical level, zero could have gotten into JOP. Does that tell you anything about these papers?
Right - part of the purpose of the journal (as I understand it) is the unwillingness of Big 3 editors to raise the bar technically. So even if a paper clears the substantive bar it may run into the technical one. (They are not that easily separated but that's the idea.)
Stephen F. Austin (Tex.) is scheduling campus interviews.
Anyone know if Colorado-CS has made an offer?
The comments above seem to contradict much earlier claims (on the departments blog and journals blog) that editors are too prone to reject papers given one negative review and fail to exercise independent judgment.
You may criticize editors for failing to explain their decisions to you (although beyond the cover letter they send to the authors, not sure what else is expected), or for exercising poor editorial judgment.
But I don't think it's fair to criticize an editor soley for choosing to reject your advice.
I only care a little that the editor doesn't heed my advice. I care greatly that the editor wasted my time and the time of the other reviewers and published a paper over our multiple rejections. Why even do the review if the paper is going to be accepted anyway?
Yawn...isn't there a journals blog for all of this? What happened to the jobs blog?
Perhaps an even better context would be how many papers in the top three would have gotten into QJPS. Not that many.
Yeah, they aren't reductionist enough. Any substantive interest in the paper would need to be sucked out first.
QJPS is an echo chamber for the GSB, MEDS, Caltech, and Princeton crowds. Nothing more.
Yeah, people from those places never publish in the top 3...
I was told that British Journal of Political Science was a very high journal, maybe fourth. It seems many people disagree. What are the top ten?
Is it correct that Texas A&M is in the category of departments that value quantity of publications?
Yet only one 1 out of 8 assistant profs in the dataset is considered 'productive' as measured by >=1 pubs per year...
comments?
What does reductionist mean in the present context? And why is it pejorative.
> GSB, MEDS, Caltech, and Princeton
Yeah those places SUCK.
Is it correct that Texas A&M is in the category of departments that value quantity of publications?
Yet only one 1 out of 8 assistant profs in the dataset is considered 'productive' as measured by >=1 pubs per year...
comments?
Check back in 3-4 years and I think you may have the answer -- not all assistant professors are going to "graduate."
Based on accepted and forthcoming articles, it appears to be an echo chamber for:
Princeton
Stanford
Northwestern
Caltech
and
Chicago
Rochester
MIT
NYU
Illinois
Yale
Iowa
Harvard
Wisconsin
Michigan
Anonymous said...
> GSB, MEDS, Caltech, and Princeton
Yeah those places SUCK.
2/12/2007 6:23 PM
-------
Whether those places suck or not isn't the point. The point is that the QJPS was set up to cater to their interests, and their interests only.
I think that if you check, many (most) of the people listed here:
Chicago
Rochester
MIT
NYU
Illinois
Yale
Iowa
Harvard
Wisconsin
Michigan
trace their lineages from here:
Princeton
Stanford
Northwestern (Kellogg)
Caltech
The point is that the faculty in those pplaces have no problem publishing in top places. So why would go to all the trouble to set up a journal to do something they are doing anyway?
> the QJPS was set up to cater to their interests, and their interests only
I disagree with "cater" but it was set up to serve and advance the leading quantitative edge of the discipline. That does tend to be found disproportionately at some schools. But it's a useful purpose for the field.
Not true. KK agreed to set up the journal because he wasn't getting his work into top places as consistently as he would have liked. Plus formal types have complained for years that their work can't get into the APSR or AJPS. Remember the backlash after Hill's anti-formal posting when he was editor of AJPS?
> why would go to all the trouble to set up a journal to do something they are doing anyway?
I take it they felt constrained by technical limitations at existing journals. Prior to QJPS no journal existed to serve the purpose it serves.
This is nonsense. Why would KK set up a journal that he as editor cannot publish in if he was upset about not publishing?
That's pretty funny speculation about Krehbiel and his motives.
KK was upset in general. Same with McCarty. They're not hyper-selfish. They merely want to see certain interests get represented, or at least more represented.
Chicago
Rochester
MIT
NYU
Illinois
Yale
Iowa
Harvard
Wisconsin
Michigan
trace their lineages from here:
Princeton
Stanford
Northwestern (Kellogg)
Caltech
*********************
And they have sucky placement records too!
Hard not to, when you have these sorts of Inside Baseball institutions out there, to help you out.
That's hilarious.
"2/5 is too high. 1/3 maybe."
----------
So 6/15 is too high. But maybe 5/15 is legit. Is your off-the-top-of-your-head analysis really that precise? Or do you just like thinking you're so knowledgeable.
But the difference between 2/5 and 1/3 sounds so much bigger. Someone get me a behavioral economist!
Is it correct that Texas A&M is in the category of departments that value quantity of publications?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, it is not correct. They basically only count top 3 journals as I understand it.
Its also beyond me why formal theorists are such kool-aid drinkers. Quality is not necessarily correlated with method. There is more than one way to skin a cat, so let's move on.
<< Home