Dude, you got me. I don't even know what a ninth is or how many of them ISA gives the editor...
Sure honey, if you think the "substantial stipend" works out to more than $1.25 per hour and makes up for opportunity costs (you have heard of them, yes?) you are clearly a grad flake making 19k per year and are highly unlikely to ever edit a major journal.
I'm wondering, Kiley, how all of this translates into losing 1.5 in IF in five years. I didn't say it was easy or particularly wealth-generating to be an editor; and I'm not saying that editors should automatically be expected to greatly increase IF during. I'm saying that coming in with a plan to change the way things are done, and seeing that plan move a journal from one that competes with International Organization and World Politics to one that competes with Conflict Management and Peace Science - in the space of one cycle - constitutes a clear and obvious failure of editorship. Do you disagree?
At least Roscoe seems not to care that Dan drove ISQ into the ground, seemingly believing that the job of an editor is to not care about the journal's prestige and focus on cute, esoteric nonsense because the discipline is just too boring.
To publish the best work he or she can find. He's not in sales, which seems to be your idea.
Why? What do you think the job of an editor actually is?
I can't get over the focus on impact factor as a self-evident measure of virtue, GMC (!) as a model etc.
Bro - he published a solo article by a graduate student who remains unemployed, claiming that Tom Clancy's work actually influenced Gorbachev's and Reagan's summitry. It didn't; and no evidence at all was provided to bolster the argument that it did.
Does that sound like"the best work he can find"?
That is one article. And again "who remains unemployed" again suggests that whatever is popular at the moment is right. Like the IF focus. Leaving Clancy aside, can you genuinely not imagine someone not thinking that way? That whatever is most fashionable might not be best? It's really something you can't even imagine, I guess.
To publish the best work he or she can find. He's not in sales, which seems to be your idea.
Why? What do you think the job of an editor actually is?
I can't get over the focus on impact factor as a self-evident measure of virtue, GMC (!) as a model etc.Bro - he published a solo article by a graduate student who remains unemployed, claiming that Tom Clancy's work actually influenced Gorbachev's and Reagan's summitry. It didn't; and no evidence at all was provided to bolster the argument that it did.
Does that sound like"the best work he can find"?
That is one article. And again "who remains unemployed" again suggests that whatever is popular at the moment is right. Like the IF focus. Leaving Clancy aside, can you genuinely not imagine someone not thinking that way? That whatever is most fashionable might not be best? It's really something you can't even imagine, I guess.
To publish the best work he or she can find. He's not in sales, which seems to be your idea.
Why? What do you think the job of an editor actually is?
I can't get over the focus on impact factor as a self-evident measure of virtue, GMC (!) as a model etc.
Bro - he published a solo article by a graduate student who remains unemployed, claiming that Tom Clancy's work actually influenced Gorbachev's and Reagan's summitry. It didn't; and no evidence at all was provided to bolster the argument that it did.
Does that sound like"the best work he can find"?
Thinking what way? He rejected 95% of submissions. I'm guessing, strongly, that the submission pool didn't decrease in quality. But I know for a fact that the pool of published articles did. Ask me how I know.
Lloyd I am logging of because clearly you aren't paying much attention.
First, a few more thoughts re: "I'm saying that coming in with a plan to change the way things are done, and seeing that plan move a journal from one that competes with International Organization and World Politics to one that competes with Conflict Management and Peace Science - in the space of one cycle - constitutes a clear and obvious failure of editorship." do you really think an incoming ISQ editorial team has the degrees of freedom required to execute a plan? Seriously, this is the sort of Romantic nonsense that people say who have never edited a association journal. You do know that a new editorial team works with ISA and makes a proposal with its plans, approach, qualifications and so forth?
And World Politics? Either you are old or you are stuck in a time warp.
Are you obsessed with Nexon? I mean frankly it is quite odd given the real issues involved and the consequences for careers to make one editor you focus.
^I'm entirely privy to how that, and other, ISQ teams were selected. Nexon's pitch was to change things, considerably. He did, despite fighting all manner of public rear-guard actions to convince people he didn't. And things did change. And now we've seen the consequences.
No matter to me; of I come up with a lesser idea, I'll just think about sending it to CMPS before ISQ.
Lloyd, did you somehow think that if ISQ had a higher impact factor and you published there people would respect you more or you it would somehow put you over the top for tenure?
Lol. I did, they did, and it did, several years ago. On multiple occasions. ISQs were part of the centerpiece of my tenure application. Now? Why would they be?
You "know for a fact"? Quality is some objective matter? You have an advanced degree in this, or any subject, really?
That is one article. And again "who remains unemployed" again suggests that whatever is popular at the moment is right. Like the IF focus. Leaving Clancy aside, can you genuinely not imagine someone not thinking that way? That whatever is most fashionable might not be best? It's really something you can't even imagine, I guess.
To publish the best work he or she can find. He's not in sales, which seems to be your idea.
Why? What do you think the job of an editor actually is?
I can't get over the focus on impact factor as a self-evident measure of virtue, GMC (!) as a model etc.
Bro - he published a solo article by a graduate student who remains unemployed, claiming that Tom Clancy's work actually influenced Gorbachev's and Reagan's summitry. It didn't; and no evidence at all was provided to bolster the argument that it did.
Does that sound like"the best work he can find"?Thinking what way? He rejected 95% of submissions. I'm guessing, strongly, that the submission pool didn't decrease in quality. But I know for a fact that the pool of published articles did. Ask me how I know.
You "know for a fact"? Quality is some objective matter? You have an advanced degree in this, or any subject, really?
That is one article. And again "who remains unemployed" again suggests that whatever is popular at the moment is right. Like the IF focus. Leaving Clancy aside, can you genuinely not imagine someone not thinking that way? That whatever is most fashionable might not be best? It's really something you can't even imagine, I guess.
To publish the best work he or she can find. He's not in sales, which seems to be your idea.
Why? What do you think the job of an editor actually is?
I can't get over the focus on impact factor as a self-evident measure of virtue, GMC (!) as a model etc.
Bro - he published a solo article by a graduate student who remains unemployed, claiming that Tom Clancy's work actually influenced Gorbachev's and Reagan's summitry. It didn't; and no evidence at all was provided to bolster the argument that it did.
Does that sound like"the best work he can find"?Thinking what way? He rejected 95% of submissions. I'm guessing, strongly, that the submission pool didn't decrease in quality. But I know for a fact that the pool of published articles did. Ask me how I know.
You "know for a fact"? Quality is some objective matter? You have an advanced degree in this, or any subject, really?
That is one article. And again "who remains unemployed" again suggests that whatever is popular at the moment is right. Like the IF focus. Leaving Clancy aside, can you genuinely not imagine someone not thinking that way? That whatever is most fashionable might not be best? It's really something you can't even imagine, I guess.
To publish the best work he or she can find. He's not in sales, which seems to be your idea.
Why? What do you think the job of an editor actually is?
I can't get over the focus on impact factor as a self-evident measure of virtue, GMC (!) as a model etc.
Bro - he published a solo article by a graduate student who remains unemployed, claiming that Tom Clancy's work actually influenced Gorbachev's and Reagan's summitry. It didn't; and no evidence at all was provided to bolster the argument that it did.
Does that sound like"the best work he can find"?
Thinking what way? He rejected 95% of submissions. I'm guessing, strongly, that the submission pool didn't decrease in quality. But I know for a fact that the pool of published articles did. Ask me how I know.
I do, in fact. I'm a full professor of political science. Are you?
And you still think research "quality" is an objective thing that you can determine? Just wow. As for me, I am a qually grad student, Dan Nexon, The Walrus and Keyser Soze.
You "know for a fact"? Quality is some objective matter? You have an advanced degree in this, or any subject, really?
That is one article. And again "who remains unemployed" again suggests that whatever is popular at the moment is right. Like the IF focus. Leaving Clancy aside, can you genuinely not imagine someone not thinking that way? That whatever is most fashionable might not be best? It's really something you can't even imagine, I guess.
To publish the best work he or she can find. He's not in sales, which seems to be your idea.
Why? What do you think the job of an editor actually is?
I can't get over the focus on impact factor as a self-evident measure of virtue, GMC (!) as a model etc.
Bro - he published a solo article by a graduate student who remains unemployed, claiming that Tom Clancy's work actually influenced Gorbachev's and Reagan's summitry. It didn't; and no evidence at all was provided to bolster the argument that it did.
Does that sound like"the best work he can find"?
Thinking what way? He rejected 95% of submissions. I'm guessing, strongly, that the submission pool didn't decrease in quality. But I know for a fact that the pool of published articles did. Ask me how I know.I do, in fact. I'm a full professor of political science. Are you?
Lloyd, I am really sorry that you are at an institution that relied on the impact factor of your ISQ pieces to tenure you. I am really old-fashioned in my belief that faculty should read and evaluate published work rather than relying on secondary indicators like journal placement and impact factor. But then I am a dinosaur that way. In any case, ISQ's loss in terms of your future output is clearly CMPS' gain. Perhaps another editorial team-- motivated by money and the drive to raise the impact factor-- will have an excellent "plan" for "change" and execute it properly.
So, just to recap, this is what we have so far on the other side of the argument:
- It's really hard and thankless to be a journal editor. But that doesn't really matter anyway, because the actions of journal editors have no bearing on the prestige, direction, or impact of a journal. Oh, and you're an a-hole and an amateur if you disagree with me.
- A journal editor's job is not to protect the reputation and prestige of the journal; it's to publish what she really thinks is the best work. And if the work she publishes decreases the citation impact and visibility of the journal, that's OK, because the field was boring anyway. In fact, there are no objective indicators of anything. Even not having a job means you're a brilliant scholar. Oh, and you're an a-hole and an amateur if you disagree with me.
ISA is NOT a business. APSA isn't either. They're professional associations. OUP, which publishes ISQ, is also a non-profit and part of Oxford University. So the problem is you thought this was a Murdoch publication?
Oh, I forgot: journals aren't businesses, because I don't like businesses.