======= Date Modified 25 39 2009 16:39:52 =======

Hiya..


Last July I submitted a paper to an academic journal (soc. sci.), and after their board meeting in October it was sent out for review. By the beginning of February (thus about 3 months later) I received the comments of the reviewers and was asked to re-submit the paper with the implemented changes within 6 weeks.


I re-submitted the paper in the last week of February, but have been waiting for comments or a reaction to my revision ever since. (i.e. about three months).


Somehow I would have thought that the second round of reviews would proceed quicklier, or is this common practice (or perhaps they've found some major faults with the paper now which they didn't see before)?


How long have you waited for paper reviews and re-reviews?

======= Date Modified 18 05 2009 11:05:11 =======

Hey,

I was hoping one of the statistically wise ones could spare a few thoughts on this- and apologies if the question is relatively daft, this is because I'm asking about possible consequences of something I'm not yet familiar with.

I'm in the process of transforming historical data that has a hierarchical structure into computerized form. Using a normal excel-type spreadsheet for putting in the data is rather cumbersome due to its nested structure. I therefore thought it might be useful to familiarize myself with relational databases and construct one (e.g. in MS Access).

My question relates to the future analysis of this data. Can I straightforwardly analyse such a relational database descriptively in standard stats software such as SPSS? I'm also thinking of possibly performing multilevel regression on the data (the only software I'm familiar for such is HLM). Does the format of a relational database cause any special issues in this case?

I'd be very grateful for any hints..!

Hi Ruby,

thanks for sharing your experience with this situation, I found it very comforting to read! It's great that you managed well to combine some side-projects with work on your thesis. I think you're right and as long as the external demands are met, some delay with the dissertation project doesn't necessarily need to be such a problem. It's also comforting to hear that the "scenic route" in your case was sometimes quite unexcpectedly beneficial for the dissertation and your overall development as a researcher. I think I sometimes need to more confidently remind myself of these things, thanks for giving me some perspective!

======= Date Modified 08 53 2009 10:53:37 =======
hey..

this is one of those fishing-for-sympathy posts, trying to see if anyone else is/was in a similar situation..?

I'm just a bit concerned about my talent to distract myself from actual work on the dissertation by working on other (relevant but not immediately thesis-related) stuff.. At the moment I'm trying to revise a paper I had given at a conference for a special issue of a journal that the session organisers are convening. Thing is, the paper I gave there was not directly related to my thesis, meaning that the work I'm currently putting in for trying to make a journal article out of the paper is again not directly something I'd use for the thesis, although it's not completely off topic either. But it's still quite some work, which will have been even more "useless" if the paper gets rejected. I was lucky to have gotten to the second review stage with another paper, which, however, again does not directly relate to my thesis, and if I'm lucky and it's not rejected at this stage, it'll probably mean some more work to come -- which again doesn't directly benefit the thesis.

I'm enjoying all the work I'm doing, and I'm working relatively efficiently, but at the same time despite the relevance of this work, I feel I'm not making progress with my actual thesis work.. which sometimes causes me moments of slight panic.

On the other hand, I've got a relatively specific "battle plan" for work on the thesis, as well as a timeline for the steps required, which was approved by the sup. But I'm still rather in the beginning with the thesis, as I haven't done any concrete analyses yet. It seems from an existential point of view I'm quite safe now and no immediate pressures are imposed on me. As I'm enjoying what I do I sometimes think I shouldn't worry too much about this stuff, but sometimes I feel rather inadequate when others seem to make more "relevant" progress.

As I said, I haven't got a clear point really, just wondering if there's anyone feeling similar at the moment..

Thanks for reading this!

======= Date Modified 13 Mar 2009 11:15:00 =======
@cdrwolfe
for the impact factor, check the "web of science" database, where in the "additional resources" section there is a link to "journal citation reports"

======= Date Modified 04 Mar 2009 11:04:12 =======
I second what has been said, but would like to more strongly emphasise that the main point why this situation is dangerous is not a moral one, but one of power: as has been said, as much as it might seem like your relationship is an equal one, from a structural point of view it is not and will never be (unless you change supervisors). The problem when personal issues are mixed into such situations is that you tend to forget that in the end, he's got more power than you have, you are dependent on him in terms of your PhD and career. Also, should this personal relationship for any silly reason turn ugly, he'll have more means available to be a damaging influence. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case, but there is a very clear risk for you in there, which is more to do with the structural coordinates than with his person.

Cheers, Alice, helpful to know that such things seem possible.

Congrats on your accepted article!

Hey Alicepalace!

thanks for your comment!

I definitely have the same problem of wasting loads of time on fiddling with some details of the wording and I'm certainly doubtful that in the end this actually necessarily improves the outcome.. I somehow wish they'd given my work a bit more substantial/thorough criticism, in a way I feel there's something "missing" in the article but I'm rather hesistant to go too far with my revision since they seemed generally happy with it (and I would have needed more substantial criticism as guidance for any improvement).

Mhm. I guess you're right that it possibly doesn't require special mentioning if I did some more minor changes etc.

If you don't mind me asking, how did you explain to them that you wanted to change more than they asked? Which field are you in?

======= Date Modified 24 49 2009 11:49:16 =======
Hi there..

am trying to resubmit an article to a journal. The reviewer(s) pointed out several issues. While changing the manuscript in accordance to their suggestions, I found some further convoluted sentences/wording that I'd like to change too, although these changes weren't demanded by the reviewer(s).

Is this acceptable? I thought I include a line in the response letter (after pointing out in detail how I implemented the changes they suggested) that I made some additional minor changes which did not affect the argument, structure or presentation of the article.

What do you think?

======= Date Modified 20 Feb 2009 07:40:37 =======
at the risk of being censured for advertising -- I've found moveflat a helpful flatshare-searching site (in addition to the already mentioned gumtree)..

EDIT: stupid me only realised now that you're not actually looking for a flatshare, sorry!

Hi all,

thanks for your comments..

The journal wrote me a letter last autumn saying that they forwarded the paper to someone to specifically look at the statistical bits in it.. so in a way that should reassure me that they now say it's ok but I'm still somewhat puzzled (that someone who's supposed to give stats advice to the journal is simply ok without commenting much on the stats at all).

So yes, maybe the strategy to get free stats advice from a journal was a bit mistaken. I feel a bit silly for getting so worried now about this issue when they actually said it's ok, but some suspicion/paranoia remains.

I have, however, heeding Hypothesis' advice, now tried again to contact someone from the stats department of my university.. so hopefully will have another opinion on the matter, though so far haven't gotten any reply to my e-mail. But then I guess the matter will be more complicated even, what if the stats person says it's indeed rubbish when the journal wants to have the original rubbish?

Argh, I'm getting on my own nerves here fretting about this issue, but thanks a lot for letting me vent, and thanks for your comments.

Ok, now this sounds a bit silly, but I'm a bit concerned about the positive feedback I got on an article I submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. At first I was just happy to get a revise+resubmit, but now that I'm starting to make the changes I realise that the comments of the reviewer are rather superficial, and I'm getting somehow scared that my stats didn't get scrutinized properly.

The thought of publishing something that bears my name and then turns out to be flawed is rather scary right now. I initially submitted the article to get some more substantial feedback (especially on one issue of my use of the statistical method) as they are not too stats-savy at my department, and I wanted some external feedback whether what I'm doing is ok. But the reviewer's superficial comments don't reassure me. I feel thatif the analysis is flawed but published I can only blame myself.. thestats department at my uni is not very approachable and so I've beenmainly teaching myself the details of the particular method used.

I'm kind of getting suspicious now, but I don't know if that's just my paranoia of being a fraud or if I have a point, and if the latter, what to do.

Any words of wisdom?

Thanks for your input! The issues you raised about intellectual property etc. did not even come to my naive mind when I first pondered about the situation.. so thanks for pointing that out!

It's a tricky issue really, I briefly talked to my supervisor about it after posting here and he seemed doubtful that anyone would be interested in taking on the additional work of commenting on someone's paper if he doesn't even know the person.. and he thought it not to be very common in the academic culture of the country that I'm living/studying...

Hmm.. I'm not sure really what to do, probably I'll leave the issue a bit and think about it again. I guess in the specific case at hand, stealing ideas is less of a problem since I'd be submitting the paper to a journal in April and it's documented that I presented about the same topic at a recent conference (and then the groundbreakingness of the paper is still to be debated :p ). Also, what I'd be interested to receive in terms of feedback from someone versed in the field is not so much an original idea, but rather some tough questions that question my argument or are left unaddressed but would have to be taken into account.. or something.. hm..

but thanks again for your comments, was very helpful to read about your experiences/thoughts.

======= Date Modified 10 19 2009 06:19:30 =======
Hi there,

I've got one paper under review with a mid-to-lower tier journal and now noticed that the terms " (anonymous) peer review" actually seem to comprise a variety of different practices of refereeing? I always thought that the editor first screens the submissions and then decides which ones to send out to (two) different reviewers for double-blind review.


The journal that I'm dealing with currently has a different practice (although also calling it peer review and anonymous refereeing): all members of the editorial board read the contribution and discuss them in detail at their board meeting (blind-review), then (e.g. for getting additional consult on the stats part) a paper gets forwarded to external reviewers for double-blind review.


I'm just wondering if you have experience/opinions whether the specific practice of peer review is itself an indicator about the "quality" of the journal? I'm happy about my R&R regardless of the rank of the journal really, but was surprised to find this different practice. If the editorial board are the main reviewers, it is "only" a "single"-blind review (I know who the board members are but they don't know my name/affiliation).


Also, the comments I got were mainly from the external reviewers, so somehow I'm wondering where the "rest" of the review is.. this latter issue is not something you can answer of course but maybe someone has had experiences with this type of reviewing process?


So basically I'm curious what's your experiences with different reviewing practices, and whether anyone has encountered the one described above?

Hey there..

recently I went to my first conference, where I found out that the organisers of my session are currently inviting submissions for a special issue on the same topic as the session. The paper I presented there was quite well received and I was thinking to give it a go and submit my (revised and extended) conference contribution.

Since the paper I presented there was not directly related to my dissertation topic (nor the department's research emphasis), I was hoping to get someone else more versed in the field to read it first (I did get feedback at the conference of course but it was rather general).

Now my question: do you have experience with approaching other lecturers/profs who have no connection to you or the department to ask them for their opinion/feedback? I'm a bit hesitant to ask someone else to work for free for me, but is this something that's "usually" acceptable? In a way I feel there's nothing wrong with asking, but on the other hand I'd feel better to do that when knowing that it's not an uncommon practice. (I have someone specific in mind at my university who's done work that relates to the topic of my paper.)


Greatly appreciating your thoughts/opnions/experiences..!