The Case for an Activist Editorial Model

Jerry A. Jacobs

Chapter 13 in Opening the Black Box of Editorship, 2008, pp 124-133 from Palgrave Macmillan

Abstract: Abstract We have all heard complaints about the journal review process. One common grievance is about a reject decision after multiple rounds of review. “My paper was under review at that journal for three rounds of reviews stretching out over two years before it was finally rejected. It was nearly enough to make me want to hit the bottle.” A more frequent, if somewhat less exasperating, refrain from authors is the lack of clarity in how to respond to reviews. “I received four reviews from the journal. The comments were mostly thoughtful but they led in many different directions. Unfortunately, the editor provided no guidance in how best to address these comments.” The question I pose in this essay is whether these experiences are inevitable or whether there are editorial models which reduce the likelihood of these and other problematic situations.

Keywords: Review Process; American Sociological Review; Peer Review Process; Multiple Round; General Reader (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palchp:978-0-230-58259-0_13

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.palgrave.com/9780230582590

DOI: 10.1057/9780230582590_13

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Palgrave Macmillan Books from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().