On 2012-07-01, at 9:40 AM, Annette Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wonder how the experiences can be so diverse. Perhaps journal editors in different areas are differentially obsessive about such minutia. In the last several year, I have published mainly in history and theory, where there is a general acknowledgment that APA format is not terribly well suited and, so, somewhat more tolerance for idiosyncratic solutions. When I have published historical pieces in more general journals (like Amer Psych and Can Psych) I have often had to have this little discussion with the editor and they usually see my point. Experimental.or clinical journal may adhere more strictly to The Rules. > > Number 1: author submits article and gets a rejection notice with detailed > information why. Man's response: Hot damn! I've got a publication, let me > clean it up and resubmit. Woman's response: Damn! Another one for the trash > can. Let me start over. I don't know whether there is a sex diff, but I was always taught, and I teach my students, that "revise and resubmit" means you have the editor on the line and now you just need to reel him or her in. Presuming that every little criticism means the whole thing is junk is deeply counterproductive. It is the reviewer's job to criticize. If s/he didn't provide criticism, s/he wouldn't be called upon very often to review in future. > Number 2: women spend a much larger amount of time and effort on addressing > every single critique; men pick out the ones they find most important and > address only those. Having been an editor myself, I always tell my students to read the editor's letter carefully. S/he will tell you which critiques s/he wants addressed and which you can punt on (by not mentioning them), but s/he cannot say outright, "Ignore Reviewer 2's second critique. It is foolish," because the reviewer often sees the letter to the author as well. Also, I have become more comfortable with telling the editor that the reviewer (or even the editor) is just wrong about this or that. Often, with misguided criticisms, I will say that I can see how other readers might have the same misapprehension, and devote a footnote to explaining why that is, without distracting from the main narrative (and then I have to have the discussion with the editor about why footnotes are useful in such circumstances, APA's silly resistance to them notwithstanding). > And how can you tell across disciplines who was primary on the study as I > understand that in many medical studies the LAST author is the primary > author. Sigh. So many games, so many more important things to do. In most scientific disciplines other than psychology, the lab director is the last author. In math, also, it is convention for the senior author to go last. Actually, I have seen it happen increasingly within psychology, where researchers were trained in neuroscience or comp sci, etc. Chris ....... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=18731 or send a blank email to leave-18731-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
