FUNKNET Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4

[s.t. bischoff]

As a graduate student in a generative program at an R1 institution I was
told by a few faculty members  that the only publications that count are
those in a "tier 1" journals when it came to hiring (e.g. members of the
higher committee at this particular institution looked for publications in
these journals when considering a candidate)...for the department the
following were often cited as "tier 1" journals in no particular order:

Language
Linguistic Inquiry
International Journal of American Linguistics
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

Having published in different subfields I've learned that different journals
have different weight, in fact different publications have different weight
(e.g. some conferences in computational linguistics are extremely difficult
to get accepted into and the post proceedings go through a second round of
review...so those are considered rather "prestigious" publications for folks
in that area). I wonder what journals FUNKETers consider "prestige"
journals? I also wonder if in general, for those that have served on hiring
committees, how much weight prestige journal publications really have.

Cheers,
Shannon





On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:30 PM, <funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu> wrote:

> Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to
>        funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Peer reviewing (Tim Thornes)
>   2. Re: Peer reviewing (A. Katz)
>   3. Re: Peer reviewing (Thomas E. Payne)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 19:19:19 -0500
> From: "Tim Thornes" <tthornes at uca.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Peer reviewing
> To: <dryer at buffalo.edu>,<amnfn at well.com>
> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> Message-ID: <4BB794BF020000870007A8D6 at GWIA1.uca.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Peer reviewing
> To: Tim Thornes <tthornes at uca.edu>
> Cc: dryer at buffalo.edu, funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1004031754220.11299 at well.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Tim,
>
> Both creative writers and linguists are self-selected. Many of us not in
> an academic position submit to both trade publishers and to linguistic
> journals. Some of us fancy ourselves to be both novelists and linguists.
> We get rejected more often than not. But only time will tell. ;->
>
> Among those on Funknet, T. Givon has published both linguistics books and
> trade novels.
>
> Short term prestige may lie in the prestige of the publisher. But surely
> in the long run,  it's the contribution to the field that really counts!
>
>    --Aya
>
> http://hubpages.com/profile/Aya+Katz
>
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, Tim Thornes wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:15:41 +0300
> From: "Thomas E. Payne" <tpayne at uoregon.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Peer reviewing
> To: "'Tim Thornes'" <tthornes at uca.edu>
> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> Message-ID: <7AFAFC95AC1148119AE5ABE08FB8A66F at TEPAYNEPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4
> **************************************
>