next »

[svenc]

If it's really that far off being ready, won't many journal editors just reject without review anyway?

At least in my social science field, far too few editors make use of the desk reject option.

[johnr]

I now have a philosophy of putting no more effort into reviewing than I think the authors have put into adequately finishing an article, no matter where it is submitted (and I am in a field where the top conferences usually require completed papers). If something comes to me and it has patently been submitted before it has been finished I will likely write a review that says 'This paper is not yet ready for publication. As a reviewer it is not my job to work with incomplete/inadequately proof read/insert other failings due to insufficient care in preparation manuscripts. I suggest the author(s) complete(s) the work to an acceptable standard and submit(s) the paper only when this work has been done' or words to that effect. So the author's (or authors') time is wasted, not mine.

I'm in complete agreement with this. It is absolutely NOT acceptable to submit a paper that you know is not ready for publication; it is an abuse of the review system. 

[seniorscholar]

If it's really that far off being ready, won't many journal editors just reject without review anyway?

In the journal published in my department, the "editor" is on campus about once every two months, and the grad student funded by a research assistantship to open the envelopes and line up reviewers wouldn't dare not send things out.

[onestep]

hello, just wondering if anyone has ever submitted a paper for publication they knew was not nearly up to par for publication only so that they could get some reviews/suggestions back?

In my field, we submit abstracts that get reviewed, but not full papers.  If the paper is not finished, we generally state "preliminary findings" to indicate that we're still in the midst of the analysis and things may change. 

However, I would not formally submit a sub-par paper simply to get suggestions.  It's a good way to annoy people and you may even develop a reputation.  An editor of Midjournal discovered that Dr. X was submitting only so that he could get feedback and submit anew to Highjournal.  That is, Dr. X would get an R&R, but instead of revising it for Midjournal, he'd revise and send it to Highjournal.  After doing this a few times, Dr. X's work is now summarily rejected from Midjournal for his abuse of the system and people's resources.  As the editor is good friends with other editors, word is beginning to spread.

[sciencephd]

If it's really that far off being ready, won't many journal editors just reject without review anyway?

At least in my social science field, far too few editors make use of the desk reject option.

In my field, far too many do.

[frisbee_chaser]

Just remember, you then run the risk of a paper that you consider sub-par being accepted, becoming part of the literature, with your name on it, forever.   It could be embarrassing if your work wasn't really ready, or it could be a chance lost to put a better version of that paper in a more prestigious journal.

[terpsichore]

It is absolutely NOT acceptable to submit a paper that you know is not ready for publication; it is an abuse of the review system. 

And if that's not enough of a disincentive, the author of such a paper will get a reputation for sloppy work. You do not want editors and reviewers, not to mention possible future search committee members, to get this opinion.

[canadatourismguy]

I hope then you get a series of 'bad' articles to review.  It is a painful and time consuming endeavor. 

While I appreciate that you want constructive criticism, that is not really the intent of the review process.

I second the idea of sending the article to friends and colleagues. 

CTG

[sciencephd]

Perhaps if reviewers were more honest and did not provide paragraphs of constructive suggestions for improving papers that are piles of crap, and instead rejected them with a terse explanation of why they were crap, then authors would be less inclined to try this sort of thing.

[shrek]

But for a conference submission can't you just indicate that the results are preliminary? As someone suggested upstream? (sorry if this is incoherent, I think it might belong in posting while plastered)

[anony4now]

I bet you would get more useful feedback more quickly if you asked friends from grad school and friends in the field to read (polished) drafts.

Yes, I already have tapped into that pool .. but maybe I can think of some additional folks. After reading your own stuff over and over it's gets rather repetitive :-)

[anony4now]

I bet you would get more useful feedback more quickly if you asked friends from grad school and friends in the field to read (polished) drafts.

Agreed. Many conference reviewers won't give you substantive comments--perhaps just a paragraph. A friend or associate is much more likely to give you the attention your work deserves.

Journal reviewers often give two to three pages of comments, in my experience. No conference will ever give you that much.

So the consensus seems to be that journal reviews are more substantial than conference reviews - I was not aware of this, and it is useful to know. Thanks.

[anony4now]

hello, just wondering if anyone has ever submitted a paper for publication they knew was not nearly up to par for publication only so that they could get some reviews/suggestions back?

Apparently most of the authors of papers I have reviewed lately have done exactly this.

No, it's not appropriate. 

Thanks - I was thinking this too, hence my query.

[anony4now]

Just remember, you then run the risk of a paper that you consider sub-par being accepted, becoming part of the literature, with your name on it, forever.   It could be embarrassing if your work wasn't really ready, or it could be a chance lost to put a better version of that paper in a more prestigious journal.

Good point - thanks, this thread has contained lots of useful information. For what it's worth, I will go with my instinct, confirmed here, that it is not proper to submit only for review purposes.

[canadatourismguy]

We have what we call 'Friday afternoon forum' in our department.  We do this monthly.  Whoever has a paper they are about to submit sends it to the department (there are usually two).  We then meet over beverages and discuss the papers.  It works well in three ways: 1) helps identify what the reviewers are likely to comment on; 2) lets each other know what we are working on; 3) creates a social interaction between us that enhances collegiality.