Comment on APSR
posted by Political Scientists for Scholarly Journal Ethics @ 3:31 PM
34 Comments
Political Science Journal Monitor
Political scientists have designed this site as an outlet for their colleagues to share their experiences--both positive and negative--with submitting to or reading scholarly political science journals. Postings aim to promote more consistent adherence to an ethical code by journals and their contributors, an improved review process experience, and a superior product for readers.
34 Comments:
I'll be happy to leave the first comment.
Five years after perestroika, still the same: blech.
Okay, but what should the APSR look like then?
What about "Perspectives" which was created ostensibly as a bow to the Perestroika movement?
Do you like it?
To the 11:43 comment: do you really believe that APSR has not opened up to previously excluded types of research? We've seen interpretivist research, we've seen non-Strausian theory, we've even seen qualitiative research on American politics published in the APSR. I'm sorry, the notion that the APSR hasn't opened up--one of the central criticisms of perestroika was that it was not open--just doesn't comport with reality.
I think APSR's opened up; I also think the quality of the articles isn't quite where it used to be.
Exactly: The "opening up" was what killed it.
Ugh, the APSR is just awful, now. So much clap-trap gets in there. There used to be several articles worth reading, and now I'm lucky if I find ONE. And I can't imagine the new editorial team approach is going to make it better. So much for the "flagship" journal! I'm retreating to the top specialty journals.
Define claptrap. Does it mean, "work not in your sub-sub-field?" Does it mean "work not using the one method you were indoctrinated in at the particular school that happened to admit you/offer your most funding back in 19xx?" Or does it mean "stuff that got accepted instead of your submissions?"
The APSR will never satisfy everybody and never has, but nostalgia for the Finifter Era suggests that someone needs to lay off the lead paint for a while.
I say this as one who has submitted to the APSR multiple times under the current editor without success.
I don't think 3:43 is demanding a return to the Finifter era.
There are too many political pressures on the APSR interfering with basic editorial judgment and independence.
So what this means is that instead of the editor publishing the best quality articles (regardless of sub or sub-sub-field), there is a kind of "affirmative action" in place for bad work. The current editor has admitted as much in several talks on editorial decisionmaking and management.
This pressure to diversify the journal to provide space for mediocre content will only marginalize the APSR, and turn scholars toward the other top journals where there is less political pressure on the editor.
Who is this mysterious lobby for mediocrity? Do they have a PAC? Are they registered? Of course we all remember the late great Sen. Hruska,who famously said of Judge Carswell, Nixon's failed Supreme Court nominee: "Even if he (Carswell) were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."
But Sen. Hruska has been singing with the choir invisible for some years now, so I am not sure to whom 8:27 is referring.
I don't know anything about affirmative action for bad work -- except that such a program might explain my own positive experience with the APSR -- but perhaps this has more to do with the quality of submissions in previously under-represented methodologies, subfields, and approaches?
In other words, would "bad" work be getting in if the "good" work in that idiom when to the APSR? Or does "bad work" mean doesn't conform to behavioral or formal methods?
Personally, I haven't noticed a significant decline in the quality of work in the areas I pay attention to. There have been a few "dogs", at least in my view, but that's par for the course with any journal that uses peer review.
claptrap
n : pompous or pretentious talk or writing [syn: bombast, fustian, rant, blah]
At some point in a field's development, you just give up on trying to reach the entire field, or a general audience comprised of everyone. We are at that point now with the growth of knowledge and the extent of specialization. The most general journals become less useful to the field's researchers. This is an inevitable development.
Why not make the APSR more like the Academy Awards? Publish it once a year and have every APSR member vote for those articles submitted "for your consideration" from every other journal in the discipline. They could the unveiling at APSA.
Among other things, it'll keep my recycling bin open, since the APSR generally goes from mailbox to "out-box," does not pass Go, and does not collect $200 -- though it does lose its plastic skin.
Does any one have an idea what the approx. review times for the APSR under the new editorial board are? I submitted an article for review around the beginning of July, and I was wondering when I should expect to hear back. Thanks!
Appears like they are adopting a kind of six-month-rule like AJPS.
This kind of policy is unquestionably elitist, and heavily favors senior scholars who can afford to wait-out the process for however long it takes.
It's back to the editorial philosophy of authors serving journals rather than the other way around.
The new editorial mess at the APSR:
Rogowski: "So we have these 22 manuscripts that have been here 3 months, the reviews are in, and we need to call a editorial committee meeting do make some decisions."
Ed Asst1: "Okay, I'll see when the editorial committee can meet."
=====A Week Later======
Ed Asst1: "Well, Ed1 only comes in on Thursdays. Ed2 only comes in on Mondays and every third Wednesday. Ed3 is here Tue and Thursday but only from 9 to 10 am. Ed4 is not teaching this quarter and so only comes in by appointment. Soooo, the soonest the ed committee can meet is 5 months from now, in the Spring quarter.
Ed Asst2: Isn't that a long time for the authors to wait for decisions?
Rogowski: Oh! Screw the authors. This is the APSR. We're much too important to let authors' careers get in the way of our leisure time as faculty. This isn't Hertz or Holiday Inn. We didn't take on this job to provide service.
Ed Asst2 to Ed Asst1: Wow! I think I'm going to send my next paper to the LA Times. Hey! You wanna go down to the beach?
Ed Asst1: Sure! That's why we get paid. This is pretty good gig.
[Sorry I can't draw, this would have been a great cartoon!]
at what point - if ever - will the APSA step in and say to teh new editorial team 'get it together or step down" - my guess is never
So 3:38, what was your lovely expereince like with the field's 'top journal'?
it took the new team 44 days to assign reviewers and 16 to go from editorial assistant to an editor. And its on a general topic with plenty of possible reviewers.
Great! And somehow taking this long is going to lead to a better product?
I can see where it would lead to a product with fewer good papers by junior scholars, and a journal weighed down heavily by seniors.
44 Days?! Pathetic and irresponsible. There are journals like JoP and APR that get your first round of reviews back to you before that.
And the reviews aren't any less thorough, either.
Would be nice of the APSR folks would put the voices of some junior people on its editorial board.
These long-turnaround policies discriminate heavily against junior scholars who don't have forever to wait to build a tenurable record.
These editors know about as much about high quality and service as Chrysler. Bad product, inefficiently produced.
Rogowski to Ed Asst1 via cell: "Hey! Stop bugging me at the beach with all this APSR crap. I'm next due into the office three weeks from Friday, but just for 90 minutes, I'll take care of it then."
Reviewed multiple pieces for the APSR under the current team. No complaints about their decisions or, after some initial bumps, their letters to authors. But they move at a crawl compared to Lee Sigelman's operation, they work at a *crawl.* Decisions more than two months after the (apparent) final review comes in, etc.
UCLA Team in Unison on the 1 hour per year they are actually together:
"Ahhh...beach life. Let's not be bothered with actual work.
Authors should feel privileged and honored that we just *look* at their manuscripts! If they actually get reviews back, they really owe us!"
To 8:01 --
TWO MONTHS!? AFTER reviews are received??
Why is anyone still sending work there? Part of being an exceptional journal is providing an exceptional service to the field, not resting atop a hollow sinecure and reaping the benefits of prior teams work.
Anyone else noticed that the Editor's Annual Report on the APSA webpage is from 2005-2006? No information on the new team? Maybe that says something in itself.
2:47 -- word on the street is that this is a deliberate ploy to deter submissions, i.e., the shift to electronic submissions led to an overload of pieces. Can anyone confirm this?
Any increase in submissions has little or nothing to do with a shift to electronic submissions.
Electronic submission is not appreciably easier or likely to attract more manuscripts than the older submission methods.
Fact is that the number of mss. circulating has been rising for awhile. Many journals have experienced an uptick in submissions over the last 5-7 years, regardless of the system they use for submission.
More universities expect solid publication records for tenure, and in many cases publications are a requirement for even securing an interview -- which was not true in 1988, or in 1978.
So the greater number of manuscripts in circulation is a direct response to the heightened demand for publications by universities for hiring and promotion of junior faculty.
In the face of this development, is the proper response of respectable journals to slow down response times?
No, that only discriminates against the very people who are trying to establish a career; younger scholars who face these additional demands.
The appropriate response is to hire the personnel and find the editors who are willing to handle the increased workload.
If the folks presently at the APSR can't manage it, then find someone else. And if the APSA, MPSA, SPSA need to pay editors more to keep them from whining about the increase in submissions, pay them.
*Any* number of submissions: 1,000 or 8,000 is manageable, with good service and fast turnaround, providing the appropriate personnel are in place to manage the paper flow.
So to the editors who think they need to discourage submissions by providing rotten service: Stop whining and step-up; or quit and let someone else do your job.
I will go on a limb and say that not “any number of submissions is manageable”. This is a fairly out of touch statement.
Journals are appropriated a budget not by their Universities, but by their publishers, as 5:19 notes. Often, the budget is identical for the journal that receives 600 manuscripts per year as the journal that receives 100. Try to pay an office of three editorial assistants out of 30k a year. What is more, occasionally, Universities will require that an Editor (who is often given a lighter teaching load while heading the journal) pay for someone to teach their dropped classes OUT OF the journal’s budget.
It’s a fairly stable truth that decreased turn-around times increase submission totals as everyone is in the hunt for publications and tenure. Look at any journal’s yearly report to see this. I’m not encouraging the slowdown of decisions, far from it. Merely stating that often the best journals, those with excellent turn-around times and fair decisions, are often punished later as they begin to receive more work, within a constrained and inelastic budget.
Also, considering the raw amount of reviewers who reject requests for review, time/teaching/living-their-life constraints on Editors and office teams, some understanding is called for that flooded journals cannot be expected to provide a decision immediately. Although, transparency wouldn’t hurt either.
No, not at all out of touch.
Though I would grant that most people are clueless about how journal support really works, including 1:48 -- and many editors.
First, note that the remark was any number of submissions is manageable providing the right personnel are in place. That means both quality (committed to good service) and quantity (the number needed to process the paperwork).
Journals are supported by their publishers. True enough. But publishers also raise the support levels to journals periodically, knowing that increased costs can be passed down to subscribing libraries (as libraries are the primary customers).
Some journals are also supported by association dues (APSA, SPSA, MPSA), and section dues. These contribution levels are not fixed for all time but can be raised to subsidize journal costs.
Naturally any price increase to subscribing libraries or increase in dues to section or association members may result in losing some, but most customers will not jettison subscriptions to the major journals which they consider essential to their collections. And it is the major journals that are most pointedly faced with the sharp increase in submissions.
Understanding, by the way, is usually in short supply at higher levels of tenure review.
Unfortunately, deans don't extend a lot of understanding when at tenure time faculty raise various circumstances (often legitimate) that have delayed or obstructed progress toward publication of books and articles.
At my university, saying that you didn't publish more papers in the APSR or AJPS because you couldn't afford to wait a year+ for a decision will get you laughed out of the dean's office. At the college and university level of review, lame and inefficient management practices at journals don't get a lot of 'understanding.'
They look at what's in front of them -- that's about it.
What is considered a normal review time from APSR these days?
I submitted a manuscript to APSR in mid-September 09, and received three first-rate reviews by early November 09. I'm not sure about the typical review time, but my experience differs considerably from the ones posted above. The turnaround time was shorter, and the quality of the comments higher, than is typically the case at other journals.
^ mt. Sept 08 - Nov 08. I wasn't posting from the future to let you all know that things will get better.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home