next »

[drgazi]

I was wondering about people´s opinions regards 1, 2, and 3rd tier journals, all peer-reviewed.  Although the first tier journals are clearly essential in getting tenured jobs, the role of 2nd tier and below strikes me as ambiguous.  Moreover, is it worth the bother to submit to a 3rd tier (peer-reviewed) journal and can it do harm rather than good?  Some interesting cases in point:

1. Sometimes one´s area is best represented by a specialty journal that is lower ranked than a more general top-tier journal - is this usually taken into consideration by tenure or hiring committees?

2. Another example- a paper isn´t accepted at the 1st tier, how far down the line would you go before tossing it in the trash bin?

3. One might easily collect a lot of working papers and pet projects over the years that are are peripheral to one´s main focus and thus not top-quality, but yet good enough to be publishable somewhere.  Is it worth the effort? 

4. One could break a complicated, 1st tier piece into several minor articles, thus publishing 3 2nd tier pubs instead of a 3-study, top tier pub.  Bad idea? What about a 3 study 2nd tier piece into a 3 3rd tier pieces?

4. Should one list lower-tier articles on one´s CV? Is it ethical to publish things because you think they are interesting but not list them for career reasons, or is it paranoid to think that these pubs would hurt your career?

I was wondering primarily about the social sciences, but would be interested in hearing peoples views from all areas.
many thanks!

[snape]

I never write for second and third tier journals. That's something that other people do. If they publish my work they must be good :)



 

[case_insensitive]

1. Sometimes one´s area is best represented by a specialty journal that is lower ranked than a more general top-tier journal - is this usually taken into consideration by tenure or hiring committees?

I'm not in the social sciences, but in a business field. My research is in a sub-field that is never published in the top three journals (they don't publish anything from a lot of sub-fields).  My area is best represented by several specialty journals.  Over a many year career and teaching at several schools, I have found that how this is viewed varies widely by school and by dept head (i.e. very differently from one dept head to another in the same dept over time).  No matter what they tell you when you are hired, it can all change with no warning.

[seniorscholar]

In my field there are very narrow "9th tier" journals -- of which the only subscribers are the specialists in very small subfields. The big-name specialists among them are the peer reviewers for the essays, edit special issues, and commission people who submit good things to take part in large research projects. Though almost no one outside the subfields recognizes the names of these journals, they are absolutely the best place for beginners to publish, because it is through these "unheard of" journals that the networks form, the good letters of reference originate, etc. (A thought originated by the fact that I have just read a c.v. for someone up for tenure, about whom I've been asked to write an outside review, and am impressed by the grad student essay in one such "unknown" journal -- and the other things that have branched out of it.)

[busyslinky]

I have heard that publishing in some journals works against you.

I have heard that vitas with 10 Tier 1 journals have a perception of being better quality than vitas with 10 Tier 1 journals and 10 Tier 2, 3 journals (everything else held the same).  So the vita gets watered down.

I heard this through the rumor mill and someone mentioned it as a study of some sort for a major conference.

[phantom_friend]

In making decisions about where to send my work, I look at where other good scholars in my field have published and choose those journals.

I must admit, though, I had great admiration for a distant acquaintance (already tenured) who chose to publish an article in a somewhat obscure journal (the title of the journal was [insert statistically small, maligned, and misunderstood ethnic group here] Studies).  This was one of the best articles I have ever read, and it could have been published in a more widely-distributed journal, but I gather that she chose to publish it in the one that she did because there are community leaders and activist-nonacademics who also read that journal (and who don't necessarily read [insert "top" journal here]), and she wanted to have her work appear there for politically-responsible reasons.

[smbriver]

I think it mostly depends on the discipline, the school, and those reviewing a tenure packet.  I've been told by my mentors that you should publish everything you do, even if it is only acceptable for a lower tier journal.  It demonstrates your commitment to finish a project and makes your work available to everyone else.  Lower tier journals are also great outlets for quality undergraduate research that you have directed.  You may choose to leave your name off because it's a lower tier journal, but I wouldn't.  Co-authoring a paper with one or more undergraduates should be praised by your evaluators.  You may also need to do side studies that are only publishable in lower tier journals, but that support your main research focus.  Those published side studies can then be used as supporting evidence for your larger, high impact papers in tier 1 journals.

You can always leave off your lower tier publications from your tenure packet.  Just make sure they don't take too much time away from working on your better publications.

Sincerely,

Biased

[much_metta]

I assume you are talking about TT positions at R1 institutions?  You don't say, but the obsession for tier 1 is very much an R1 thing.  There are many institutions, my own included, where research is important, but it is not the be all and end all of existence.  Institutions with a more even balance of teaching and research tend to care far less about where you publish so long as you publish, and I'm in the social sciences, too.  (This is good because these institutions typically don't have the resources to support tier 1 type research agendas.) 

I did have 1 pub in a tier 1 when I applied for my current position, but all my other pubs since (but 1) have been in tier 2, 3, or below, as is consistent with the quality of what we can produce with limited resources.  The SCs I've served on frequently make hires who have no tier 1 pubs, but have published in other tiers or have manuscripts under review. 

If you're looking only for R1 type research-heavy institutions, then the prior advice is probably good, but anyone who is considering less research-heavy institutions should not be discouraged from applying if they don't have a tier 1 pub.  It won't always automatically disqualify you.  In fact, publishing in lower tiers is often seen as encouraging to these SCs because it demonstrates that you can do research and publish with limited resources, like the kind we often have!

[g_funk]

As case_insensitive said, opinions on publishing below the first tier can vary greatly from dept to dept, and I think that this forum reflects that..is there no consensus on the value or harm of publishing 2nd or 3rd tier articles? 

For example, it seems that people here are ok with 2nd or 3rd tier in the case of specialty journals.  What about interdisciplinary journals, that don´t make the top tier in either of their home fields? and good old normal journals that are simply 2nd or 3rd tier without being "specialty"?  At what point would you decide to send submissions to these journals?

[helpful]

As others have said, it depends on the discipline and on the university. In my social science discipline, publishing in a 2nd or 3rd tier journal is better than waiting years to get into a 1st tier journal. What matters more is being peer reviewed; it doesn't matter what the 'tier' of the journal is..just get published!

[phddd]

This is probably answered somewhere else, so forgive my ignorance. And feel free to send me to another thread: How do you know which journals are 1st, 2nd or 3rd tier (in the humanities)? I've never seen a journal advertise on their websites "submit your paper to us! we're third tier!" Maybe it's obvious in the sciences, but how do you know which journals are on which tiers in the humanities, other than by "gut" reactions? (Ok, so yeah, Representations and Critical Inquiry are top tier... I think... but what about all the other journals on muse and jstor?)

[harry]

Another place where opinions can vary is even *within* an institution. For example, your department and/or outside reviewers might take one view of your pubs, while the dean and provost might take another. In our case here (public R1), I've been told that the higher-ups tend just to start counting lines. Given the increasing emphasis on "metrics," demonstrating productivity numerically, etc. there's a case to be made for publishing more.

That's particularly true in the humanities, which generally don't have a specific "impact factor" associated with even the top journals. To answer phdd's question (a common one), go with such factors as the journals you use most often, the places where top names are currently publishing, etc.

It's funny you mention _Representations_. I was talking recently to a colleague who does early modern, and we both remarked that we use that journal very infrequently. (Much more useful are RQ, ELH, SEL, ELR, etc.) We were struck by how much the journal has changed (or at least our perceptions of it have changed), especially given that it was considered a site for some ground-breaking early modern New Historicist work years ago.

[bluelaser]

3. One might easily collect a lot of working papers and pet projects over the years that are are peripheral to one´s main focus and thus not top-quality, but yet good enough to be publishable somewhere.  Is it worth the effort? 

You are getting solid answers to the other questions, but I want to chime in on this one.

The truth is that high quality research (demonstrated by publication in top tier outlets) is part of my job and part of the T/P process at my university.

However, in most cases, I just really want to know the answer to the research question that I am studying.

Often my interests and the interests of those in my field overlap, but there are times when they do not.

Although I would not recommend this before earning tenure, I work on these projects even though I know that they will never be published in a top-tier journal (if they are ever published at all).

For me, they are worth the effort, because they help me answer questions or solve problems that interest me.

On the other hand, for my department/university, these projects are NOT worth the effort because they take my time and energy away from other projects that have a much higher probability of being published in a top-tier journal.

Again, I would not recommend this before earning tenure.

Finally, the OP sounds like a grad student or new faculty member. I strongly suggest that all grad students have a serious talk with their advisor before submitting any of their work to a journal or conference. Likewise, new faculty should be discussing potential journal submissions with their chairs and with other senior faculty in the department.



 

[bibliothecula]

4. Should one list lower-tier articles on one´s CV? Is it ethical to publish things because you think they are interesting but not list them for career reasons, or is it paranoid to think that these pubs would hurt your career?

No, always list your pubs in chronological order. If the publications are in your area, then you should list them. If you're writing for airline mags, then I'd say, no, that's avocational. In short, if it's going to hurt your career, why would you publish it to start with?

[t_folk]

I've just had an article accepted by a journal that most would consider to be "second" or "third tier." Last week, my wife, who is a librarian, discovered that Library Journal had recently published a favorable review of this journal and noted that it was a lesser known publishing interesting, quality articles. So, it may not be such a lesser known anymore. The way I see it, a pub is a pub and, regardless of "tier," gets your ideas out there.