Peer reviewing

Thomas E. Payne tpayne at uoregon.edu
Sun Apr 4 09:15:41 UTC 2010


I think that, in general, journal publication should be given more weight
than publication in edited collections for the following reasons:

1. As you mention, Tim, contributors to edited collections are often invited
by the editors. This may make it more difficult for an editor to "reject" a
paper that turns out not to meet expectations -- it may seem ungracious to
invite someone to submit a paper, and then reject their contribution.

2. Being the editor of a collection is itself a significant entry on a CV,
so editors are motivated to collect papers and get them published. A journal
editor, on the other hand, probably already has tenure, and in any case
already has the CV entry as a journal editor, so the motivation is more
toward enriching the quality and reputation of the journal, rather than in
simply getting something published.

3. Journal editors are editing professionals. If they have been doing the
job for any length of time, they have extensive knowledge of the field,
including who are good reviewers for which topics, etc. Editors of
collections are likely to lack this breadth of experience, and are more
likely to tap into a comparatively smaller circle of reviewers.

4. A journal has a reputation to build on, whereas edited collections do
not. Not all journals are created equal, of course. But we have a "sense" of
what the quality and significance of a publication in a particular journal
is likely to be. (Similar to how one has a "sense" of the likely academic
preparation of a graduate of a particular graduate program). For edited
collections, unless the editor is well-known and/or has a series of previous
collections, one has no such history on which to base one's expectations.

None of this is absolute, of course. There are particular cases in which
some or all of these considerations are irrelevant. This is just my attempt
to "flesh out" my intuition that journal publications tend to be more
substantive than publications in edited collections.

Tom Payne 


-----Original Message-----
From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu
[mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Tim Thornes
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 03:19
To: dryer at buffalo.edu; amnfn at well.com
Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Peer reviewing

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
>
>



More information about the Funknet mailing list