next »

[my2cents]

Of course wutan! ;-) But I bet'ya much of the anxiety on this forum -- about "what counts/ what doesn't?" "What's a respectable journal in my field and what's not?" "should I write a book chapter, or an article?" "should I write book reviews?" -- doesn't stem from folks in science ;-) 

[untenured]

Thanks.

What sparked my interest in this was an informal chat at a conference with someone who had inside knowledge about an elite journal. (Ah, there's so much to learn at conferences!)

My colleague said off-handedly that, "oh yeah, Journal of Elite Studies has a 5% acceptance rate.  What they don't tell you is that once you get a revise and resubmit, the rate jumps up to like 40-50%."

After lifting my jaw up from the ground and asking why, he said:

"Because the journals get tons of crap!  Stuff that isn't written in high school English.  Stuff that is no better than a newspaper article.  Staff that is totally off topic...."

Untenured

[menotti]

Wasn't there a study that found that the best researchers were also those who had the most journal rejections?   That suggests to me that getting more material out is probably a good thing. 

In my experience, it also seems like those with the most fertile imaginations (and thus ultimately the most creative research) are those who walk around saying things like, "That's an interesting question!  I'll have a do a brief report on that."  Or, "You know, this analysis makes me think of analysis Y...an interesting, if not major, point.  I wonder if one of my students would like to work on it and get it published in a minor journal."

[untenured]

Yet another example.  I just received an email inviting me to publish in a symposium issue for a so-so journal.   So I did a cost-benefit analysis.

Cost?  Relatively low.  Short article.  Symposium topic in a field of interest.  Most research already completed in my stored files.  Can promote my prior work.

Benefit?  Low to moderate.  It's another article.  That's good.  Not all my articles have to be home runs.

So I will probably say yes.

Untenured

[banana]

I've been thinking a lot about this BP-to-LPU continuum.  I have some projects underway right now that I've literally been treating as though I can't write anything until the whole project is done.  One one hand, this now seems really silly.  I might be wasting precious time (& pubs) by going this route.  On the other hand, there's something that would feel lousy about taking the thinnest slice possible (say, a descriptive write-up of one time point from a multi-time-point study) and trying to get it out there.  Somehow, this would feel like "pub-grubbing." 

What I'm trying to consider now is a middle-of-the-road approach.  Example:  I have a 1-year grant to do a particular project that has a longitudinal component (4 data collection points) and a cross-sectional component. There are a couple of undergraduate thesis students who will be carving out part of the project as their own.  If I went extreme BP, there would be a single paper out of this, written at the end of the project, incorporating everything, and submitted to a big name journal.  If I went extreme LPU, I can literally see FIVE papers that could be written up out of this project.  Some of those 5, however, would be shamefully thin.  But what if I aimed for 2 or 3?  Then, I wouldn't be spreading the study quite so thin, and I also wouldn't be waiting to pack all the findings into a single heavy-hitter paper.

The final thing that nags at me about all of this relates to the ethics of writing multiple papers off the same sample/dataset.  I need to check my discipline's ethical standards on this one...

[untenured]

That sounds like a good plan.  Slicing one's research sausage too thin might result in poor pubs.

Hmm... I can't see why creating multiple papers from a dataset would be an ethical problem.  If only one paper could be created per dataset, then most datasets in the world would be of limits.

I wouldn't think of it as "pub-grubbing" or not.  Rather, view your decision to slice publications or not in terms of whether the narrower idea has a reasonable shot in getting into a good journal.  If the answer is yes, then by all means publish the narrower idea.  If the reviewers think your idea is too thin, don't worry they will certainly let you know.

Untenured

[yuba08902]

My colleague said off-handedly that, "oh yeah, Journal of Elite Studies has a 5% acceptance rate.  What they don't tell you is that once you get a revise and resubmit, the rate jumps up to like 40-50%."

After lifting my jaw up from the ground and asking why, he said:

"Because the journals get tons of crap!  Stuff that isn't written in high school English.  Stuff that is no better than a newspaper article.  Staff that is totally off topic...."

This is so true!  I wouldn't have believed it until this experience.  Years ago, I guest edited a special issue of a journal.  The journal's overall acceptance rate isn't as low as the one specified by your colleague.  It's more like 20%.  But we got so much material that was so clearly unsuitable that I was dumbfounded and amazed, and there was so little that was suitable that we ended up taking the vast majority of our R+R's.

For instance, the journal has a 30+ year history of publishing material on a specific topic, but so many of our submissions fell squarely outside of the journal's scope.  I'm willing to bet that these authors had never even picked up a copy of the journal.  Those that fell within the journal's scope often fell outside of the specified special topic.   Then there were the submissions that were clearly unrevised graduate student seminar papers; one of the authors didn't even bother to change the name of his Word document when he submitted via email to us.   It was fall2001termpaper.doc or something like that.  (Incidentally, I have since become acquaintances with this person who I met at a conference, and he must have learned something along the way since he now has a tt job.)

So, by all means, don't let a journal's acceptance rate faze you.

[edwidge]

Banana, one longitudinal data set I'm familiar with has generated more than 1000 journal articles/book chapters, so I don't think 2-3 pieces from you own project would be slicing it too thin!

[banana]

Thanks, edwidge.  [Still no list from you, eh? ;-) ]  I see your point, particularly for very large samples followed over substantial periods of time.  The NICHD studies, for example, generate tons of articles off of an ever-accumulating very rich dataset.  My own studies are much, much smaller scale, and each "slice" would therefore be quite thin -- possibly to the point of appearing like I was trying to make something out of nothing (which is why I hesitate).  On the other hand, it's true that I once submitted a paper that re-used an older dataset, but with additions -- this didn't stop the reviewers from publishing it, though they did request very specific clarification of the relationship between the paper under review and the previous paper.  I suppose the only way for me to know is to try, and then gauge both reviewers' responses and my own feelings about it.

[wiglet]

Banana, I appreciate your invitation to join in this thread!

Here are my professional highlights to date:

-4 peer-reviewed journal articles published, with 1 accepted and forthcoming (all sole-authored)
-4 peer-reviewed journal articles in the preparation stages, with plans to have them all out and under review by the end of the fall semester (all co-authored, with first authorship on 2/4)
-1 published book review
-consulting editor for a journal in my field, ad hoc reviewer for 2 others
-2 internal grants (one as part of a group of researchers, totaling roughly half a million $$)
-1 federal grant (I'm a co-Investigator)
-have spent the last 2 years learning an advanced statistical technique with a small working group; will be beginning to learn another technique in the fall with the same group (led by a brilliant yet kind statistical methodologist)
-have maintained my integrity within the teaching realm: students have to work hard to earn a 3.5 or 4.0 in my classes, but I still get strong teaching evaluations
-co-chaired the search committee
-participate in 3 standing committees; was asked to chair 2 of them but declined
-was asked to assume an administrative role in one of our graduate programs but declined
-elected to the advisory committee to the Dean

Here are my personal highlights:

-have maintained a strong relationship with my SO
-have reared (and continue to rear) 2 well-balanced, funny, smart kids, both of whom are in elementary school now
-have become a regular exerciser
-have made some okay friends here, and maintained strong friendships with people in our previous locale

[banana]

Welcome, wiglet, and congrats on all of your achievements thus far!  (They put me to shame.)  Care to share your secrets/tips?

Your school has internal grants to the tune of a half mil?!?!? 

[banana]

Oh, and you're welcome re: the invitation to join this thread. ;-)

Nanlet

[wiglet]

Banana, you're at a SLAC, right? I'm guessing you are teaching a lot more than I am (I'm at a large, research-heavy university), and thus you have much less time to devote to writing and research. So, it's like comparing apples and oranges (or bananas and wiglets).

Re. the 500K: there is currently a big push at my university to foster interdisciplinary teams' obtainment of large federal grants. The internal grant supports our team in collaborating together, carrying out pilot studies, etc., all in preparation for a large federal grant proposal in a few years. Most of the other faculty on this interdisciplinary team have brought millions of federal dollars to the university, so they are a proven entity. I am the junior faculty whose job is to be mentored. I feel very lucky.

[banana]

Yes, I'm at a SLAC, so it's true the relative balance of teaching to research differs quite a bit from yours at an R1.  Still, though, my publication record falls somewhat short of my own goals (if not those set by my college).  Plus, I often ask myself about my fit with this institution, and *if* I were ever to move, I'd want to have the kind of publication record that could make me a reasonable candidate for a more research-focused position.  So, even as I hustle along, trying to achieve excellence in teaching, I always have one eye out for ways to boost my research productivity.  I like to ask people here for their tips, and I like to read books like "How to Write a Lot" and "Getting Things Done."

[untenured]

That's a good perspective, banana.  Write for the standards at the school you wish to employed, not for the school you currently serve.  That plan served me very well as I was able to jump from a masters R2 to a doctoral R1.

My grant expectations are zero.  No forms for me.

Untenured