In a message dated 10/15/02 11:54:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< While there is a lot of nutty stuff in academia >>
Does that mean there are many nutty professors? I thought there were only
two--Jerry Lewis and Eddie Murphy. :) If there are many, how could we model
the market for them
> friend had a paper go three rounds at AER and that took 3 years. I
> wouldn't be surprised if a lot of bad papers get rejected quickly and
> that would bring down the average turn around time a lot.
That is indeed the case. Journals get many papers of low quality, and it's
easy to reject the b
OK, but I've never had a paper turned around in less than 6 months (and
often it has taken up to a year) at any journal except the QJE. Also,
you can't divide time to publish by 3 since most of the time there is
only 1 revise and resubmit and in my experience more papers are accepted
on the first
My original statement was not about about time to publication, but "turn
around" time - ie, the time it takes to return a manuscript to author
with referee comments. I opined that "turn around" time for well staffed
journals was in the 3-6 month range for the faster social sciences, but
much long
I wouldn't if I were you. My submission to Psych Review with a revision
took 14 months from submission till it appeared in print. I've never
made it into print in a refereed economics journal in less than 18
months and more typical times are 2 to 3 year. Oh yes. And the editor of
Psych Review was
> "The data are average times (measured in months)
> between initial submission and acceptance at various
> economics journals in the year 1999."
>
> It seems that the long times quoted in this article
> are something different than what fabio was talking
> about. I have not read the article bu
"Robson, Alex" wrote:
"The data are average times (measured in months)
between initial submission and acceptance at various
economics journals in the year 1999."
It seems that the long times quoted in this article
are something different than what fabio was talking
about. I have not read the ar
source of advice.
Bill Sjostrom
- Original Message -
From: "Robson, Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:07 AM
Subject: RE: Journal response times
> Fabio Rojas wrote:
>
> "I'd say economics has a pre
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 dee
I stand corrected!! 21 months for AER papers? Hmmm... Fabio
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Robson, Alex wrote:
> Fabio Rojas wrote:
>
> "I'd say economics has a pretty decent turn around time."
>
> The following are data from a recent paper by Glenn Ellison of MIT (JPE, October
>2002). The data a
Fabio Rojas wrote:
"I'd say economics has a pretty decent turn around time."
The following are data from a recent paper by Glenn Ellison of MIT (JPE, October
2002). The data are average times (measured in months) between initial submission and
acceptance at various economics journals in th
11 matches
Mail list logo
