Reviewer #3 is reviewer #2
Sometimes, reviewer 3 turns out to be reviewer 2. But at least it’s unintentionally funny.
Tag: academic writing
In a land before time: offprints
Because there is a pandemic, we are improving the home. Because I’ve spent a year in the so-called office (i.e. the box room), the box room office is in particular need of improvement. Because it’s my box room office, it needs an especially good clean-out before there is any possibility of improvement. That’s why I’m…
Here is a new (for me) reason why the peer review process is flawed. Contains a cool simulation
Journalologists, AI, Brexit literature, and right-wing terrorism: four links I liked
Brexit is depressing, but the the #LiteraryBrexit tag on twitter is hilariousThere are scientists who use the scientific method to study how science journals work. And their work is actually relevant.Interesting, yet depressing reading: a fact-file on right-wing terrorism in GermanyToday’s AI is not intelligent. Thought so
This is what is wrong with the peer review system (single picture edition)
Received September 5, online first June 5, and at least six more months until the piece is assigned to an issue and is paginated. A neat illustration of (some of) the problems with the current system. And no, I don’t have an easy solution.
Peer reviews: If you love something, set it free. And again. And again
Being part of the peer review system has a sadomasochistic quality. Nate Jensen’s story about how he had to submit a certain manuscript again and again to different journals to get it published eventually is all too familiar. I don’t keep records as exact as his (would be too depressing), but I remember a single…
Submitting your manuscript to yet another journal is bad for my mental health
One particularly annoying aspect of doing reviews for learned journals is that assignments tend to arrive in clusters. Six months ago, I found myself in a bit of a pickle, with loads and loads of requests arriving within a short time. And just five weeks ago, another volley of invitations to review hit my mailbox…
Update on the Peer-Review Survey
Sixteen months ago, we started the Political Science Peer-Review Survey. This week, the input form was shut down. That is about three quarters of a year later than expected, but then again, I underestimated the fallout of my move back to Germany. Moreover, until a few weeks ago there was still a tiny trickle of…
A good week for the peer-review survey
On Monday, the Political Science Peer-Review Survey had 506 respondents. Between Tuesday and Friday, we sent out 1,100 new invitations. Five days and many contacts with helpful colleagues later the number stands at 626. Feel free to join them.