Unfortunately every journal is a walking disaster area because of one fundamental disease. Which in our era of great change could just about wipe human beings off the planet
CURE Papers should be in two sections requiring totally different refereeing procedures: -this is purely trying to go deeper into precedent based theory of this precisely defined subject -this is trying to take a new look at something that is changing and which needs to connect with other disciplines Since economics has stood blindly by whilst most monetary and social worth has become openly relationship connected instead of transactionally separated behind the power of closed doors, it must either own up for responsibility for the lion's share of all the crises in corporate america and world society, or get out of the way so that some multidiscipline of leadership is mapped out. It would be interesting to start up a journal which invited all the inclusivity that is needed; it would need a multidisciplinary board; and wherever a writer said something that one discipline's board member hated but another loved that would be a paper to accelerate for immediate publication, and online debate. If the debate later caused published corrections that would be a fine way to accelerate joint learning curves (well for everyone except a few paper-based journals and a few senior figures who have been out of touch with what's changing fastest) Meanwhile, we are embarking on a Being Humans Library of books - each written by a different discipline - first 2 titles : Open Branding and Open Knowledge Management. If anyone is interested in contributing a chapter or even editing Open Economics please do chat with me chris macrae www.valuetrue.com transparency www.normanmacrae.com economics and preferred future debates ----- Original Message ----- From: "fabio guillermo rojas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 13 October 2002 23:46 PM Subject: Journal response times > > > >Anyone have any idea why the norm in economics allows referees so much > > time to do a report? Why its so different from other fields? Is this one > > of those "soft" vs. "hard" field things? Its my impression that the > > physical science journals all want fast turn around on their referee > > reports. Anybody know what its like with Anthropology, Sociology, or > > Political Science? < > > I'd say economics has a pretty decent turn around time. I currently work > at the American Journal of Sociology and we usually get papers back > to authors in less than 90 days, often 60 days. My experience is that top > tier journals do better than second or third tier because they often have > prestige and staff, which encourage quick reviewer response. Most > sociology journals do much worse than AJS. > > As far as discipline goes, economics and political science is best because > their is consensus on what constitutes decent research and you don't have > to master every detail of a paper to assess its quality. The worst is > mathematics because you really have to understand every symbol in every > equation. Humanities are also bad - you don't have to understand every > word, but humanities professors are very unresponsive. On another > list-serv, I saw one math professor complain that a 5 page research note > had spent *years* at one journal. You can get similar complaints from > humanities professors. > > In the middle are engineering, sociolgy, education and other fields. Most > journals get stuff back from 3 months to a year and these fields are > "in-between" fast fields like economics and slow pokes like math. > > Fabio > > >
