In the latest editorial note, the APSR editors really give up the game. They trace three articles route through the publication process at APSR. Each article is a little wokester. They admit the articles initially got terrible reviews and had to go through multiple rounds of revisions before reviews gave up the good fight.
APSR Editors
-
Not only that but they're so self congratulating about this whole process. Direct quote from the note:
"The review process was a model of how peer review can work at its best, drawing on insightful and detailed reviews and editorial judgment about which suggestions should be emphasized in revisions. The result of this partnership between authors, reviewers, and editors is an extraordinary article"
Don't think they're doing anything special in the review process other than what people ITT have said about going through 4 rounds.
-
They need some serious self reflection. Do they read what they write in these notes? Don't they realize this all raised more questions than it answered, and they don't come out looking good.
Here's the rub: all three papers obviously had lots of pushback from reviewers not only on original submission but throughout (the third IR paper probably the least). Four rounds of revisions? I've published in econ journals with fewer rounds than that. (Also, why does APSR need four reviewers per paper?) There was lots of opposition to publishing these papers by the reviewers, but for whatever reason, the editors wanted them published. Fine: but just say that and then be honest about what you want published so the rest of us don't waste our time submitting or reviewing. And admit that the reviewers you are asking aren't the right reviewers for the papers you want published.
-
The way I read it is the third paper received more pushbacks than the first, qualitative paper. With the third paper, "The first round of reviews revealed major divisions and doubts among the reviewers." "The second round continued to show divisions among the reviewers, with two strongly opposed to moving forward". The first one didn't receive such strong oppositions even though it had one more round of minor revision.
all three papers obviously had lots of pushback from reviewers not only on original submission but throughout (the third IR paper probably the least).
-
Rewriting papers to essentially manufacture a hidden treasure over multiple revisions is major mission creep for journal editors, even those who are outstanding scholars. In my experience this happens when the editor has decided to publish crxp and ignores important criticisms of the work but still keeps sending it back. Eventually the reviewers give up but the work is still flawed.
-
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⢾⣿⣿⡭⢿⡙⢛⣾⡵⣟⠿⣿⣆⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣺⡿⣫⣯⣽⡟⠏⡭⢶⣽⣟⣿⣷⣿⣶⣹⣿⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡾⣿⣿⣵⣿⣷⣟⣚⡛⠭⢿⣒⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣿⢿⣿⢯⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠛⠋⠛⠏⠉⠉⠋⠙⠛⠻⢿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣯⣿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣮⣷⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⣫⣏⡻⡑⡿⢿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⣟⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣯⣽⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢴⣸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣱⣿⣧⡧⠁⠀⣠⡴⠾⣻⣿⣾⣿⢷⠀⢀⣾⣷⣿⣿⠶⣧⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢨⣿⢓⢮⠹⡇⠀⠀⠋⠐⠿⡿⣿⡟⠂⠀⠀⠈⣿⡿⢿⣿⡷⠸⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡟⡇⢰⠿⣳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⡀⠀⠈⠁⠀⡇⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢱⠣⠃⠵⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡠⠀⠀⠀⢘⣷⠀⠀⠀⢰⡇⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠳⣄⣀⣿⠄⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣘⣫⣍⡲⣿⣯⣁⠀⢀⣿⣇⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣇⢮⢂⢀⠀⢠⣿⣟⣟⣻⡞⡡⣿⣿⣿⣧⣸⣿⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⢿⣧⡟⣷⡀⣽⠏⠙⠭⣉⣹ They are deliciously sensitive!⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠈⠻⣿⣾⣠⡷⢀⡀⡀⢰⢿⢯⢴⣺⣺⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⢻⠀⠀⠈⠻⣿⣿⣧⣧⣷⢇⣀⣄⣴⣿⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⣴⡇⠈⠣⣀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢻⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠑⠢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠉⠁⠁⢰⢗⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⠤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠰⢥⠟⠀⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠒⢄⡀⢀⡴⠁⠀⠀⢸⣿⣦⣄⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣤⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢨⣯⣤⣀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣤⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢦⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣤⣀⠀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣀⡴⡮⠘⠃⢹⣿⣿⣿⡇⠨⠾⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄
PSRKARL© -
Original comment got deleted, but what's more disturbing is that despite their inability to publish top-tier articles, they are clearly just ignoring reviewers and publishing what they want
Do you really believe it's ever been any different?
The APSR and all quant journals are almost entirely useless and ignorable.