Peer reviewing

[Tim Thornes]

Hello,

I wonder if you or someone else could expound on the "justifiability" of equating "higher chance of rejection" with "more valuable" for promotion and tenure.  Typically, one is an invited contributor to an edited volume--meaning, someone(s), somewhere thinks you have a significant contribution to make to a particular theme (in one sense, "rejecting" other possible contributors a priori).  Granted, the level of peer review for an edited volume varies widely, but is that not true for print journals as well?  

I have friends and colleagues who are creative writers who feign envy over the mere idea of 10-20% rejection rates.  I always feel compelled to point out to them that lots of people fancy themselves writers, but only a self-selected few would go to the trouble of submitting to a linguistics journal.  Given that, how, exactly, is prestige measured with regard to publication in our field?  Do relative statuses of reviewers and/or editors play a role?

Best, Tim


Tim Thornes, PhD
Assistant Professor of Linguistics
Department of Writing
University of Central Arkansas
Conway, AR  72035
(501)450-5613

>>> "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com> 04/02/10 6:28 PM >>>
Matthew,

These are some valid points. It is the fact that journal space is limited 
that helps to shape prestige. However, online publishers can make money, 
and there are high prestige sites and low prestige sites online, too.

Unfortunately, for those of us without institutional affiliation, some of 
the high prestige sites for reading journals online are not accessible.

    --Aya

http://hubpages.com/profile/Aya+Katz



On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, dryer at buffalo.edu wrote:

>
> One point that I think is worth mentioning that has not been made explicitly 
> in this discussion (although I may have overlooked it) is that the process of 
> peer review is taken far more seriously for journals than it is for edited 
> volumes.  There is usually a far higher chance of rejection and often the 
> reviews are more helpful.  And this is the reason why journal publications 
> tend in some sense to be worth more than chapters in edited volumes and why 
> they are justifiably treated as worth more in tenure and promotion decisions.
>
> While I believe that the future lies in online journals, my worry is that the 
> peer review process will never be taken as seriously as it is for printed 
> journals.  There is something of a Catch-22 here.  While on the one hand the 
> availability of electronic publishing renders the cost of publishers as 
> "middle-men" unnecessary, the very fact that there are companies making money 
> that they will not make if they do not provide a good product means that it 
> is almost inevitable that the peer review process for printed journals will 
> always be taken more seriously than for online journals.
>
> Matthew
>
>