Monday, June 16, 2008

Comparative Journals Discussion

176 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, technically not a "journals" post, but it is about publishing.

What is the procedure for contacting presses at APSA with a book proposal? Is it acceptable to distribute proposals at APSA, or do people send them to publishers ahead of time? Do you just walk up to the booth and give them your proposal? Any advice would be appreciated.

8/08/2007 9:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Make appointments to meet with publishers in advance. Don't expect to be able to see them by cold calling as many will be quite busy.

You should be trying to schedule right about now, and send them a copy of your proposal at the same time (if you haven't already sent it to them).

8/08/2007 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone know the turnaround time of BJPS? Like, closer to IO (fast, i.e. 1 month) or World Politics (slow, 6+ months)?

8/08/2007 5:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is IO really that quick? If so, that's pretty impressive.

8/08/2007 6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My experience with BJPS is 4 months for the initial review, 2 months for the R&R

8/08/2007 6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard that someone is still waiting to hear from BJPS for the initial review after nearly 6 months.

8/09/2007 5:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My experience with CPS was 2 months for the initial review. Does this sound average to people?

8/09/2007 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I need your advice folks. I have a strong piece, which could make it either into CPS or World Politics or APSR. Where do you think I should send it? My goal is to publish it asap.

8/09/2007 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You probably have a strong piece. You undoubtedly have pretty strong priors too!

8/09/2007 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I need your advice folks. I have a strong piece, which could make it either into CPS or World Politics or APSR. Where do you think I should send it? My goal is to publish it asap.
8/09/2007 8:56 AM

------------

You clearly have enough self-confidence. Anyway, I would always shoot for APSR first, as that is generally considered the no.1 journal in the US, irrespective of sub-discipline. I also have good experience with them in terms of speed of feedback.

8/09/2007 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You still have to gauge the appropriateness of the paper to the journal. I know that's difficult to do for many topics, but at the APSR there is almost ways a kind of "Is this a big enough topic for the APSR" aspect to the editorial decision. Excellent papers that aren't seen as important enough by referees or the editors will find their way into the reject pile through negative or ho-hum reviews. Other journals also have their biases.

CPS seems to me to be very open and fair, but of course strongly favors quantitative and cross-national topics, which basically have a very difficult time making it in WP, which favors "theory" over "technique."

I've published in all three of these journals and had good success rates with all, but always gauge my chances in advance according to the theory and methods I'm using -- and not just by my own assessment of the quality of the piece.

8/09/2007 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:56 here

I might be wrong about the quality of the piece, but that doesn't make my question moot. I still need to decide where to send it first.

I do appreciate the advice. I asked about turnaround time, rather than fit because the piece is cross-national, quantitative, and "theoretical". So I know that it potentially fits all three journals. I guess WP less than the other two-- thanks 11:10 for this input. I'm hesitant to shoot for APSR because I can't think of a single high-impact article within either of the two subfields that my piece belongs to that has appeared in APSR. Do you think this is a valid concern? Obviously, if besides being the highest-ranked, APSR is also the fastest of the three, I'll send it there. Thanks to both about the advice.

8/09/2007 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the range of starting salaries for assistant professors?

Low 30s to high 80s or 90s.

8/09/2007 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Firefox, firefox, why hast thou forsaken me?

(three guesses where that last comment was asposed to go)

8/09/2007 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had about a 4 month turnaround at WP. I think the horror stories about WP reviews are overblown. Seemed all aboved board to me.

8/09/2007 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting article on co-authorship. Discuss.

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/07/20/credit

8/09/2007 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Based on my own experience, that of colleagues, and comments posted here in the past, I think you can expect quick turnaround and professional treatment at APSR and CPS, and not necessarily WP. Obviously not everyone will have horror stories from WP, but I do (I will spare you) and obviously others do too. I'm aware of fewer horror stories at APSR and CPS.

8/09/2007 2:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had about a 4 month turnaround at WP. I think the horror stories about WP reviews are overblown. Seemed all aboved board to me.

I had seven months. I've heard stories of much worse.

8/09/2007 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My main complaint about WP was the lack of useful reviews the first two times I submitted there (and was rejected). OTOH, the second time this happened I submitted the paper to APSR where it was accepted. And the third and last time I submitted to WP the paper review took quite a while, about 5 months, but it was accepted.

To me, this is still a pretty in-housy publish-articles-by-our-friends kind of place -- or at least a place where the editorial board plays a relatively large role compared to any external reviewers.

8/09/2007 6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And WP inexplicably took an entire year off from publishing, with very little explanation.

8/10/2007 4:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The good news for comparativists is that WP rarely publishes IR stuff anymore. So, more opportunities to publish in a top journal.

What does it mean that WP took a year off? They literally did not publish anything for a year? Are they backlogged and will end up publishing, or did they just skip a year?

8/10/2007 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WP doesn't publish IR? I don't think that's the case. The most recent issues have a good number of IR articles in them:

http://www.princeton.edu/~piirs/publications/world_politics.html

Topics include: globalization and conflict, US foreign assistance, transnational rebels, immigration, WTO adjudication, US nation-building. Seems IR to me.

8/10/2007 11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the rest of that link:
itics.html

8/10/2007 11:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Full name of the journal:

World Politics -- A Quarterly Journal of International Relations.

8/10/2007 5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's true that World Politics is supposed to be as much an IR journal as anything else. However, its reputation among IR people--at least the ones I know--is not very good anymore. I don't think taking a year off from publishing helped matters. It also has a reputation for being clubby, providing poor feedback, and taking a long time to review manuscripts.

8/10/2007 7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have submitted twice to WP, once published (and widely cited), once rejected. Both times, one of the two reviews was borderline unprofessional - 3-4 sentences and completely unsubstantive. For example, the one that got accepted had a review that read something like "Finally something about X topic that a child wouldn't know." Both times the other review was an R&R, so these unprofessional reviews seem to have driven the review outcomes.

8/10/2007 8:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enough about WP. Sure, some people have had shoddy experiences with them, others haven't. But, I think we'd all agree that a WP publication looks pretty darn good on your CV.

Changing topics, what are people's thought's on Journal of Democracy? Is it considered a serious academic journal, or more of a policy/current events journal?

8/11/2007 3:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Policy/current events.

8/11/2007 6:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Journal of Democracy is policy-oriented indeed, but some very widely cited articles in my subfield have been published there.

8/11/2007 6:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Journal of Democracy even peer reviewed? Please.

Sure, if you're 60, Full Prof and at an Ivy, you'll publish there... but otherwise?

8/11/2007 7:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any thoughts on the journal "Democratization"?

8/11/2007 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmmm?

8/12/2007 2:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like Democratization, though I have never published there. Quick, to-the-point articles that are great for intro to comparative politics courses.

8/12/2007 7:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A journal that publishes articles that can be used in an Intro to Comp class isn't a very good journal.

8/12/2007 7:52 AM  
Blogger C.C. Banana said...

A journal that publishes articles that can be used in an Intro to Comp class isn't a very good journal.

That's a doozy of a comment.

I have no opinion about the journal Democratization, but one should remember that both different journals -- and different styles of "Intro to Comp" classes -- serve different purposes and have different demands.

- thin skinned fruit

8/12/2007 9:04 AM  
Blogger Paul Gronke said...

I use articles from APSR and JOP in an intro to political analysis class.

Ergo, clearly those two journals suck.

QED.

8/12/2007 7:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe 7:52 just doesn't teach a very good class

8/13/2007 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, I'm putting the finishing touches on my intro course for the fall, and I am looking for a good article on the Blair-->Brown transition in the UK. Any suggestions?

8/13/2007 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Economist.

8/14/2007 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JOD has broad impact. You wouldn't publish an empirical piece there, but if you had something important and provocative to say in fewer than 6000 words, you couldn't pick a better spot.

E.g., Linz' "Perils of Presidentialism." Who gives a shit if that piece wasn't peer reviewed when the whole frickin' academic community is reading and assigning it to their undergrads?

8/17/2007 7:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would have hoped that, at least nowadays, we have moved beyond Linz's claims.

His claims were bonk then, and are bonk now. Why they were taken so seriously speaks volumes about the discipline (it's who said it, not what was said, that matters in some quarters).

8/18/2007 1:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I think that the current administration (and lack of support for it) makes Linz' point quite well.

8/18/2007 9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One wonders if 9:14 has any idea what "perils" Linz was concerned about. Here's a hint: they're actually playing out in Venezuela, not in Washington, where the only "peril" facing democracy is that the Democrats are so scared of replicating the GOP overreach of 1998 that they can't even think about the word "impeachment."

That I think the Democrats probably would repeat the GOP overreach (namely, trying to define petty crimes or political misjudgments as impeachable acts) if they tried impeachment is beyond the point.

8/19/2007 3:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the reputation of Politics & Society? "The journal's editorial mission is to encourage a tradition of critical analysis through the development of Marxist, post-Marxist and other radical perspectives." Can I send there a piece that doesn't have anything to do with class and social inequality? (my paper deals with public opinion in Europe).

8/19/2007 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if you are trying to decide whether to send your article to a journal, look through your cites and see if you are referncing any articles from that journal. It's not a fool proof system but it will let you know which literature you are engaging and where you might find an interested home for it. If you don't cite hte journal at all, then ask yourself how the article does engage the journal in virgin territory as it were

8/19/2007 12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:36 AM. You're up WAY too late to be reading this blog. I am very worried about you.

8/19/2007 7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paternalism anyone?

8/20/2007 5:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do you know 3:36 AM wasn't up way too early??

Would you still be worried then?

8/20/2007 7:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on, guys! Please pay more attention to the more important stuff on this blog. This blog only displays Pacific Time (where Google's headquarters are located). 3:38 am means 6:38 am from New York to Michigan, NOT a crazy time!

8/20/2007 8:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need another top-shelf Comparative Politics journal to stand alongside CPS since CP is dead as a doornail and WP is ... well, WP.

Discuss.

8/20/2007 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:34am, were you just rejected by CP or WP?

guess.

8/20/2007 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some people have shifted to IO or BJPS, FWIW.

8/20/2007 11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steve Poe, rest in peace. What a great loss to ISQ, political science, and humanity in general.
stevepoe.blogspot.com

8/20/2007 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CP and WP have been artifacts without any heft for years. No reason to assume criticism is sour grapes. WP didn't even publish for over a year because of the pathologies there - tough to defend -

8/20/2007 5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happened to Steve Poe??

8/20/2007 7:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tragically, Steve Poe passed away.

http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2007/08/steve-poe.html


He was an absolutely magnificent editor of ISQ.

8/20/2007 8:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:34 here, 10:52. Never submitted to CP, have once submitted to and been rejected by WP (after they tried to send the manuscript to my co-author for a review). Just think CPS is the cream of the crop and would love to see another top-shelf comparative journal, not just the proxies (good, but still proxies) of IO and BJPS and such.

And, to anticipate, I am at too early a stage of my career to propose starting up a journal myself.

8/20/2007 9:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WP publishes perhaps 12-14 articles a year, of which maybe 8-9 are comparative. It's really hard to land something there. CPS publishes 10 issues a year, 5-6 articles an issue. The fact that we all find it easier to get an article published there does not make it a better journal. Almost by definition, quite the opposite. WP's articles have also been very influential. And no, WP is not just an inside game, at least judging by who has published there in the last 5 years, and the schools at which they are located. And yes, of course I've been rejected by WP (btw, never by CPS).

8/21/2007 3:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, if you include the year WP failed to get even one issue out the door, they've published even fewer than 12-14 articles a year! Let's not pretend it isn't screwed up or clubby. It doesn't mean all the articles in it are bad or the result of contacts, but it's clearly not what it was 10 years ago.

8/21/2007 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just think CPS is a better journal, regardless of how easy or hard it is to publish there. It's the place I go to see what's happening in the field.

CPS is now actually published monthly. Just seems to me that there is plenty of room for a good general comparative journal to compete with it, since there's so much variance around WP and since CP hasn't published anything meaningful in a very long time (and is arguably at least as clubby and pathological as WP).

8/21/2007 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think another general CP journal is in the offing. CPS has obviously responded to demand, and the quality of its articles has also increased a lot over the years. WP is probably always going to be a prestige but basically fringe journal in this field because it just doesn't publish enough and has never published the types of articles that are the mark of CPS.

In the meantime, there are many opportunities in general journals including BJPS and EJPS as well as plenty of specialty journals (Electoral Politics, Party Politics, etc.) and respectable regionally-oriented journals. Re "Comparative Politics," I've never felt compelled to submit there, or even to read it (though way back at its beginning in the early 70's maybe there were a few seminal articles).

8/25/2007 8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How good is Journal of Socio-Economics in the field of comparative political economy?

8/25/2007 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wouldn't think it's regularly cited or read, but that may just be my perspective.

8/25/2007 8:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha, ha! I've never even heard of it!

8/26/2007 4:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't realize Nelson Muntz was a comparativist

8/28/2007 12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holden Caulfield, too. He's emoting on the comparative jobs discussion.

9/01/2007 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not so sure we need yet another new journal. While people here limit their discussion to "general" CP journals like CPS, CP and WP, I guess most people work within certain regions, which all have good journals like Comparative European Politics, European Journal of Political Research, Latin American Politics & Society, Latin American Research Review, West European Politics, etc.

9/08/2007 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think of EJPR more as a general journal, not as a European politics journal, even though it's a general journal with a European emphasis (in the way that JoP is a general journal with an American emphasis). And it's certainly much better than WEP or Comparative European Politics.

9/08/2007 4:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fair enough, EJPR is indeed more a general comparative politics journal, as the EJIR is a general ir journal. In fact, according to some indicators EJPR is the 3rd ranked political science journal.

Personally, I find CEP and WEP infinitely more interesting to read and providing me with much more knowledge, but that is a personal taste.

Of course, here are also various very good topical journals that provide high quality and highly ranked outlets for comparative work; e.g. Electoral Studies or Party Politics.

9/08/2007 9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If JoP is "a general journal with an American emphasis", what would you call APSR (a general journal with an even stronger American emphasis?) and AJPS (an American journal with the occasional general article?)?

9/08/2007 9:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

boo hoo

9/11/2007 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

don't cry little girl

9/11/2007 6:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JOP, AJPS, and APSR are general in that they represent, with some distortions, the field breakdown in US departments, where American tends to dominate. The real overrepresentation is theory in the APSR. I don't know where all the theory articles come from.

9/11/2007 8:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

theorists?

9/12/2007 5:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

excellent! :-)

9/12/2007 8:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any thoughts on LSQ? What is the turn-around time for comparative pieces?

9/14/2007 7:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to 7:48 am, 1-2 months. Based on what I've heard, LSQ would value more quality comparative submissions.

9/16/2007 1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any thoughts on which comparative journals are more suited to/interested in work on less-developed countries as opposed to Western Europe and Japan?

9/20/2007 5:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID)

9/20/2007 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BJPS just pushed back the pub date of an article accepted in summer06 from oct07 to april08. hard to believe there's almost a 2-year queue.

9/21/2007 6:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BJPS is about the same as CPS in terms of the queue. I heard that IO could be better. If you are accepted in June, your stuff can come out in Oct.

9/21/2007 8:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if you are at particular points in your career (an important annual review, or, god forbid, almost up for tenure) you should avoid BJPS or CPS, is that the message? On the flip side, what comparative journals are reasonably fast?

9/22/2007 3:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: 3:42am

I don't think that's the message given that journal acceptance, unlike book acceptance, is almost identical as publication for purposes of review, promotion, etc. If a longer queue also implies higher probability of acceptance, I think people should target BJPS and CPS more frequently.

9/22/2007 6:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly, having the article on your vita as accepted is usually what counts for reviews. The long delay between acceptance and publication is more of a problem in terms of exposure - people can't cite what they can't yet read (yeah, I know, forthcoming works get cited, but still...).

For what it's worth, CPS (in my experience) has an excellent and fast review process. I don't know about BJPS, but have heard mixed reviews.

(Of course, if everybody starts submitting to CPS, its acceptance rate will drop)

9/22/2007 12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The acceptance rate for CPS has fallen a great deal in recent years--I believe it is now in the single digits.

9/23/2007 4:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's not very credible given that CPS comes out 12 times a year... and its publication lag is nevertheless immense.

9/23/2007 6:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even if CPS comes out 12 times a year, it only has 4-5 articles per issue. Annually, it publishes about the same number of articles as AJPS/JOP/APSR. To be sure, it is more than what WP and CP publish.

9/23/2007 7:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Further, since there don't seem to be regular editor reports published for CPS, rejection rates are probably just speculation based on how often each of us and our closest colleagues have been rejected.

If you can find an editor's report, link to it. I couldn't find one.

9/23/2007 8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to mention that rejection rates can be driven by submissions and submissions can be driven by improvements in efficiency in processing reviews. So you could have rejection rates go up but quality of articles stay the same just because a lot of articles that wouldn't have been submitted before are now being submitted just to get quick feedback (even though the authors suspect they might not be ready).

I suspect this explains why the acceptance rate has gone from 20% to single digits for ISQ in less than 5 years.

Acceptance/rejection rates only partially tell us about the quality of the journal and may tell us more about the efficiency of the editorial process.

Look at impact factors for quality. CPS has an impact factor of less than 1 for 2006. And this is apparently less than it has been in the past--which is not to conclude that CPS is a worse journal now necessarily (i.e., there's likely a lag in citations for 2006).

This is just to point out that it would not be inconceivable to have a journal's acceptance rate go down at the same time that its impact factor declines or stays the same if the acceptance rate goes down due to a flood of new submissions (due to improvements in turnaround time).

9/23/2007 8:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually CPS appears 10 times per year. And it only publishes about 5 articles per issue. A total of about 50 articles per year is similar to ISQ and AJPS and quite a bit less than JOP. So it is not like CPS has opened the floodgates.

9/23/2007 9:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wrong, FWIW. CPS is published monthly, per the front matter of the October issue.

9/25/2007 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone here had any recent experience with the review process at Electoral Studies? A couple years ago I had an extremely long turn around time with them, but wonder if they've improved their performance since going to online submissions.

10/03/2007 8:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had a HORRIBLE experience there (last year).

10/04/2007 4:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone had any experience with the new APSR editors? How are things going?

10/09/2007 7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone had any experience with Mobilization? I'm in the middle of a very lengthy review process with them (going on 7 months), and I was wondering if this was normal. I contacted the editors about 6 weeks ago and was told they were working on it. I'm unsure if I should contact them again or just wait. Any opinions?

11/07/2007 9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone had any experience with the new APSR editors? How are things going?

I've heard that they pretty much rejected every submission since they took over. I wonder if they are even going to be able to fill any issues.

11/14/2007 11:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, so I have read a number of the "official" reports as to the best/most influential university presses across subfields including comparative, but I would like to hear which presses comparativists here actually read. Any takers?

11/14/2007 4:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, 4:22 pm, why don't you share with us the "official reports" on the best university presses in the various fields first if you have indeed read them? Also, could you also provide some links/references? Thanks.

11/14/2007 5:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure. Here you go:

2006/7 TRIP Survey: www.wm.edu/irtheoryandpractice/trip/surveyreport06-07.pdf


Also: Larry P. Goodson, Bradford Dillman and Anil Hira, "Ranking the Presses: Political Scientists' Evaluations of Publisher Quality," PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Jun., 1999), pp. 257-262.

Again I ask, is this broadly consistent with the prevailing opinion here in the blogosphere?

11/15/2007 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then there is also Berkeley's Public Affairs Report (Vol. 40, No. 6) http://igs.berkeley.edu/publications/par/Nov1999/PressRankings.html


Plus, Anil Hira's response to critics in the December 1999 PS.

Now you can "indeed" read them, too. Thanks.

11/15/2007 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, one last one is Janice Lewis' assessment...

http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crljournal/backissues2000b/july00/lewis.pdf

11/15/2007 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re 11:12am, that's not a very promising sign! any other words on the new APSR crew? if they are rejecting everyone, are they at least doing it quickly?

11/20/2007 6:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's been four-and-a-half months since I turned in an article to the APSR, and still no word.

11/20/2007 4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmm. that's a shame. i thought under the previous editor APSR had one of the fastest turn-arounds for any journal. i am starting to regret submitting something there - i thought they'd reject it quickly!

11/21/2007 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing like the awful stories I've recently heard about the AJPS. Why are there so many problems with the leading general journals in political science?

11/25/2007 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess all these journals are just overwhelmed. This might reflect the new ease of submission at the general journals. Electronic submissions are almost costless.

But it could also be something positive going on. Everyone is at least trying the general political science journals first instead of only thinking about writing for a specialized audience as in the "good old days".

11/25/2007 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone know the turnaround time of Political Behavior?

11/26/2007 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is incredible to me that the cost of postage would have deterred people from submitting to journals. Yet the switch to electronic submissions really does seem to have resulted in many more papers that need to be processed. I don't get it.

12/02/2007 10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not the cost, it's the time. With electronic submission and processing, you can expect (at well-run journals) to receive reviews in 3 months or less. That makes it relatively "costless" in terms of time to send a paper out just to get the reviews. In the good ol' days, having to wait 6 months or longer would make you think twice about sending out something that wasn't yet ready for primetime.

12/17/2007 10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had a really good experience with Political Behavior. First round of reviews back in just under three months, decision on an R&R back in about another month.

12/28/2007 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would find it very useful if someone could set up a "Journal Turnaround Time Wiki" that calculates average time from submission to first and second reviews based on individual user's input. JOP keeps records that are accessible on-line, but I don't think the other journals do. How hard would this be to set up for one of you Wiki gurus out there?

1/10/2008 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not start here, and someone can post some graphs / charts of the results?

1/14/2008 12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Editorial oversight at APSR is spotty too. A colleague just received a rejection with 1 conditional accept, one strong R&R and 1 reject from a person who began the review by talking about their strong commitment to a methodolgy other than that used in the paper (which seems to have served as the basis for the rejection).

1/25/2008 6:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the larger number of submissions to journals: my theory is that this has less to do with ease of submission, and much more to do with advances in productivity. Now that we are in the internet age, you can download all of your data & access all of your journals online. You can also do a good deal of research, newspaper searches, etc, on the web. Although some people still need to collect their own data (and this will continue to be important!!), replication datasets are easy to obtain and we no longer have to walk down to the library to make copies of journal articles. 20 years ago, someone who publised one article per year was considered very productive. Now, there are people out there who can crank out 2-3 articles in the same amount of time.

1/30/2008 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi all, Does anyone know anything about the Latin American Research Review since it changed editors? Thanks.

1/30/2008 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

who has the worst horror story in terms of the turnaround time with any political science journal for the 1st round of reviewing? the one i heard recently is nearly 1 year.

2/08/2008 10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So far, I'm over 7 months at the ____. I'll post the journal after they accept or reject. I suppose this is slightly a good sign, since the 3-month turnarounds I've experienced were all clean rejections.

But honestly, the delays are really starting to impinge on my career prospects.

2/08/2008 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A candidate for worst/best story. A colleague submits a (quant IR) paper to APSR and gets a conditional accept, an R&R with modest revisions and a reject, and is rejected. Makes most of the suggested revisions and sends to IO who says to change the citation style before they will send it out for review. After resubmitting with changed citations, the editor writes back 2 days later and says they wont send it out for review because the work is too preliminary.

I have a hunch this is a bias against non-constructivist work. has anyone had a similar experience?

2/16/2008 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting story at IO. But it seems to me that they are still publishing a lot of quantitative, non-constructivist work.

2/16/2008 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone have a sense of the typical turnaround time on book manuscripts at CUP (Bateman)? I would be interested in any personal experiences.

3/12/2008 5:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think IO's non-constructivist stuff is largely IPE.

3/13/2008 11:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding CUP turnaround question: maybe I was just lucky, but it only took 6 weeks. Yes, that is much shorter than I've waited for an article manuscript to turn around at a journal, on average. I'd be curious to know how typical that is, though.

3/16/2008 9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just goes to show you how rigorous the book review process is.

4/02/2008 5:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

from what I have seen, CUP takes about 6-9 months for the first round of reviews.

4/07/2008 8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it true that the Associate Editors at the AJPS do almost nothing?

4/08/2008 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Define "almost nothing." Are you upset, or angling for an associate editor job?

4/13/2008 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am really appalled by the careless copyediting in recent JOP issues (countless errors of citation, even author affiliation, etc.) Little wonder the slide in SSCI impact factor ranking.

4/13/2008 8:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could I have feedback on the turnaround time and quality of reviews (fairness, knowledge of reviewers) for SCID (Studies in Comparative International Development) since moving to Brown?

Not looking for comment on quality of journal. :)

5/01/2008 6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The process could be slow, but I find it probably worth the wait at SCID. In addition to two reviewers, you can expect thoughtful comments from at least two editors (they are team-edited too).

5/01/2008 8:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, 5/01/2008 8:36 PM. This is for a piece that got 2/3 publish w/minor revisions (not even R&R) from AJPS but then was nixed by the editor for not being sufficiently broad. It's quantitative/single country.

5/02/2008 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It sounds a lot more like a future JOP piece. Many, if not most, of what gets published by JOP was first (narrowly) rejected by AJPS, it seems.

5/02/2008 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anybody here have experience with JEPOP (Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties)? Fair reviews? Quick turnaround time?

5/13/2008 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know this is less likely in the anonymous world of journal reviewing. However, if you feel that your book reviewers rendered an unfair negative review--your work is quantitative but one of the reviewers was recently rejected tenure for doing descriptive stuff, is it legitimate to raise this with the press editor? Thanks a million for sharing any insights.

5/24/2008 8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FWIW, I recently received comments from two reviewers for a piece submitted to Electoral Studies three months earlier. Not a bad turnaround, in my opinion, and much better than the six months Party Politics took for a different piece. Speaking of those two journals, what are other similar journals for pieces on electoral systems and how do they rank?

5/27/2008 9:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be honest, the difference between 3 months and of 6 months reflects on the referees more than the editors of the respective journals. What you want to look for are journals (or editors, to be precise) that consistently achieve fast turnaround times (CPS, in my experience) and those that will allow manuscripts to languish for 9+ months (AJPS in my experience).

Re: electoral systems. I would say the usual journals for comparative behavior. Electoral Studies, JEPOP, Political Behavior, and if you think the ms is good enough, a more general journal like CPS or the EJPR. You could also try one of the European general journals like Political Studies or Acta Politica, though you might not get much credit with your department for a publication there.

5/28/2008 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was thinking the same thing about reviewers vs. editors. Thanks for the helpful input!

5/28/2008 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone dealt with the new editorial staff at East European Politics and Societies? I submitted an article there, got a revise and resubmit, resubmitted, and had it accepted. The catch was my article was too long, and so, after talking to the managing editor, I broke it into two pieces, and submitted the second part as a separate article. The first part I got a proof back on, and it's up on the journal's website, though it hasn't been printed yet.

After that, I trimmed the second part of the article to the desired length, and re-submitted it, along with a letter explaining what it was. In the meantime, the journal changed editorial staffs. A few weeks later, after sending three copies, I got a request to send an electronic copy for the reviewers (if they're gonna do that, I don't know why they don't change the submission guidelines), and then a few weeks later, I got an email from the managing editor ("signed" by the two editors) saying that the journal had many submissions and couldn't print them all. No reviews, no explanation, no nothing.

I immediately sent the managing editor an email saying I was baffled, given the situation. Then a little later I sent an email to the two editors, saying the same thing, as well as requesting copies of the reviewers' comments.

A couple of days later, I got an email back from the managing letter, saying "The editors have seen your message and stand by their decision." That was it--nothing else at all. I emailed her again, an cc'ed the two editors, asking for reviewer comments again, but that was two days ago, and I haven't heard anything since.

I should add that the managing editor hasn't been overly polite, and that being pointedly ignored by the editors when I email them directly (twice) doesn't win points with me either.

6/19/2008 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re: EEPS

I would suggest that you just send it elsewhere. It is better publishing a long piece as two articles at two places than publishing a long article at one place. I don't think you have lost anything in the revision/trimming process.

6/20/2008 6:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So part two has already been through two rounds of reviews, thanks to being connected with part one? Why not just submit to a different journal?

6/20/2008 8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I plan to submit the piece to another journal. However, I'm flabbergasted about the way I was treated (I'm new at this, but my understanding is that this isn't by any means normal), and I wanted to warn anyone else who might think of submitting to East European Politics and Societies.

I am a little miffed about the trimming, though--there are journals with longer length limits, and the article lost a little bit in the process.

6/20/2008 11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and thanks for the tip that it's better to publish the two parts in different places! I hadn't thought of that.

6/20/2008 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I have a new question about the two-part article: the second part shares a lot of introductory (theory and literature review) and conclusory text with the first one. Won't that be a copyright problem if I submit it to a different journal?

6/20/2008 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:48 AM - if the previous editors didn't give you a commitment to publish both pieces, then the new editors likely treated the 2nd part as a separate submission; at any rate, they decided that they didn't want to publish it and/or didn't want to send it to review, which is completely within an editor's prerogative.

3:09 PM - yes. You'd probably need the text and framing to be completely different from each other. Most journals won't accept submissions that have overlap with papers published or submitted elsewhere: check with editors/submission guidelines. Nothing preventing you citing the already published paper in setting up the new one, though (although check on journals' anonymity guidelines as to how to do that without compromising blind review, or else work in the reference to previous work once it's been accepted).

6/20/2008 6:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think they sent it for review: I was asked to provide an electronic copy, for the express purpose of sending to reviewers, and it was several weeks after that before I got the rejection email. At any rate, is it normal to provide any indication whatsoever to the contributor about what's happened?

As for the copyright issue...the two articles are basically two cases in the same study. I don't see how I could frame them differently--indeed, if they're framed differently, you lose the entire point of studying two different cases. I'm at a loss for what to do here.

6/20/2008 7:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and to add one thing to my post just above: I realize an editor can do whatever he or she wants with submissions. I'm not really interested in discussing what an editor has a right to do, but rather the matter of what's right (or wrong), or what's professional (or unprofessional).

6/20/2008 8:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had an article accepted by a CP journal last January of 2008. I still have not received my page proofs. Is it proper to inquire as to the status of my proofs at this stage? Or should just assume that they are back logged
--thanks

6/22/2008 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see how it could hurt to ask them about the proofs.

6/23/2008 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a question regarding the value of publishing with a small press. It has a major academic press as the distributor, but my guess is that it doesn't look good on a resume (I am going to look for my first TT job in a few months):

Book Title. Published by X. Distributed by Y.

My question is, Should I settle for the offer or send out proposals to big academic presses?

6/25/2008 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

go for the big ones first. it's still early in your career. use the small press as a backup.

6/25/2008 8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where would you rank Party Politics as compared to Electoral Studies? About even? One better than the other?

7/07/2008 7:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ES is better. Probably a B journal, with PP a C journal.

7/07/2008 1:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ES is better than PP, but the magnitude of the difference is not that big. Probably B versus B minus.

7/13/2008 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

July APSR. Most useless journal number in history.

7/16/2008 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is that exactly?

7/16/2008 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, it may be one of the skinniest APSRs in the last few decades, that's for sure.

7/17/2008 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What did everyone think of the mostly-judicial, mostly-American July AJPS?

8/01/2008 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought the last AJPS looked like a small conference paper set - it seemed solicited and solicitous - I guess the rumors are true that the editors get reviews as a formality and mainly publish their chums - I was very disappointed.

8/06/2008 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another question on publishing - what is a good way of finding out the rankings of publishers for comparative politics/comparative political economy? Its easier to identify the Cambridges and Princetons, but I was hoping someone out there could guide me on how to figure out good second tier presses. Any advice would be much appreciated!

8/14/2008 7:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Routledge does some decent comparative stuff. I think it matters what area of the world you're looking at.

9/06/2008 11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it was good work it would be on Cambridge, Princeton, or Chicago. And there are many 2nd level presses that are better than Routledge (3rd level or worse).

9/07/2008 8:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any opinions out there on the quality of the journal "World Development"?

9/12/2008 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From what I've read of it, it's good as an outlet for qualitative CPE, or for developing-world comparative work that is single-case.

9/13/2008 12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think of it as the best inter-disciplinary development journal.

9/13/2008 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can someone recommend a comparative journal, which would publish an article with a really simple formal model? And when I say "simple", I mean first-week-of-intro-to-formal-modeling-simple. I've noticed that most of the PA articles with super high-tech formal models always claim that they have a simple model. Mine is an extensive-form game.

I'm afraid the qualitative journals will balk at the extensive form game and preferences lingo, whereas the formal modeling journals will just laugh at my model.

Any suggestions?

9/16/2008 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Consider sending it to a specialty journal that reflects whatever area of the field the paper addresses. I'd avoid any hard-core area studies journals, unless it is a really, really simple game.

9/16/2008 3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good idea. Thanks, 3:49!

9/17/2008 8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i would say it is quite common. hosting a journal does not mean that colleagues at the dept will be excluded from publishing in it for several years. if the rule of avoidance would apply, which dept chair/provost would approve of the hosting of any top journals? faculty of Princeton can't publish in world politics? Yale people can't publish in JCR? ... ...

Of course, this is potentially problematic, but the only solution might be let the staff of APSA, MPSA be permanent, professional editors.

9/23/2008 10:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, nice job compromising blind-review. So, your question was about ethics?
As 10:26 points out, anyone can submit to any journal. It's up to journals to have policies and procedures to make sure that no authors (colleagues, friends, students) are given special treatment.

9/23/2008 11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Under most circumstances, I agree with 10:26 that this is potentially problematic.

Many journals including,ISQ, change hands every for 4 years; not a long time to wait until the journal change hands to submit a piece.

9/23/2008 11:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Believing the review process is entirely blind under any circumstances is a big push. The majority of journal editors are intimately familiar with many of the names that submit to their journals, are you going to assume those reviews and decisions are blind as well? Sparking a furor and limiting this discussion to faculty members in the same institution is a bit odd. 10:26 is right, you can't close off journals to individuals simply because they happen to be at your institution.

9/24/2008 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Believing the review process is entirely blind under any circumstances is a big push. The majority of journal editors are intimately familiar with many of the names that submit to their journals, are you going to assume those reviews and decisions are blind as well? Sparking a furor and limiting this discussion to faculty members in the same institution is a bit odd. 10:26 is right, you can't close off journals to individuals simply because they happen to be at your institution.

9/24/2008 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to be clear, blind review pertains to the relationship between authors and reviewers (so editors' decisions are not blind, though reviews should be). Of course editors know who the reviewers and the authors are, and may indeed know them personally, but they should have ways of avoiding giving anyone special treatment. Blind review is often not 100%, sure: sometimes it is possible for reviewers to identify or guess who wrote a paper, but going out of your way to find that out before submitting the review or revealing the identity to people not inside the review process is, IMHO, unethical, and certainly unprofessional.

9/24/2008 6:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you're at princeton, that's precisely WHEN you should submit to wp.

Reviews are rarely blind. And there's little evidence that blind reviews are the way to go (see qjps).

Let's not kid ourselves, here.

9/25/2008 6:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think I just lost my innocence.

9/25/2008 2:28 PM  
Blogger Political Science Guy said...

On Monday we will unveil the all new format for the Blog. We are switching to a message board format. We hope this will improve things on several fronts.

1) You still have the ability to post the latest and greatest rumors anonymously.

2) Separate threads for each discussion.

3) The ability to create a persona and post under a consistent pseudonym. (not required).

4) RSS feeds and that sort of modern web 2.0 kind of stuff for those that care.

Look for a link here and in each thread.

10/04/2008 11:17 AM  
Blogger Political Science Guy said...

The new improved format is here.

Take the conversations here:

www.poliscijobrumors.com

10/06/2008 7:42 AM  

<< Home