The funniest part of Nexon's tenure as editor was his editing. He would go through the intro and conclusion only and edit the writing. I don't think he was comfortable editing the theory or methods, which is of course funny. Anyway, I had a friend who published in ISQ while Nexon was editor and continues to this day to make fun of the editing suggestions.
At long last, is anyone going to address how Dan Nexon ruined ISQ?
-
Shouldn't an editor do that? He's not going to revise the theory on the fly, or shouldn't, but most academics write badly and editors can help by editing.
The funniest part of Nexon's tenure as editor was his editing. He would go through the intro and conclusion only and edit the writing. I don't think he was comfortable editing the theory or methods, which is of course funny. Anyway, I had a friend who published in ISQ while Nexon was editor and continues to this day to make fun of the editing suggestions.
-
It was the content of the suggestions. They were apparently... not good and often changed the meaning of what was being argued.
Shouldn't an editor do that? He's not going to revise the theory on the fly, or shouldn't, but most academics write badly and editors can help by editing.
The funniest part of Nexon's tenure as editor was his editing. He would go through the intro and conclusion only and edit the writing. I don't think he was comfortable editing the theory or methods, which is of course funny. Anyway, I had a friend who published in ISQ while Nexon was editor and continues to this day to make fun of the editing suggestions. -
The funniest part of Nexon's tenure as editor was his editing. He would go through the intro and conclusion only and edit the writing. I don't think he was comfortable editing the theory or methods, which is of course funny. Anyway, I had a friend who published in ISQ while Nexon was editor and continues to this day to make fun of the editing suggestions.
I had the same experience publishing in ISQ under Nexon. It was really strange how hands-on he was with my paper, which was very far from his area of expertise. No other editor I have experience with has done anything similar.
-
Nexon put too much of his own preferences into the journal - preferences which influenced desk rejects - and also used his position to influence decisions with split referees etc. This resulted in the articles published taking on more of a trajectory he wanted, whereas most top journals stay top because editors focus on rules where they send papers to people who publish a lot and just say no if there's any dissent, so only stuff that is typically well done quant work gets through easy. What he ended up doing is running what is supposed to be a flagship journal more like a niche journal, which is fine, but you're not going to be a top journal like that in terms of IF. That said, it is probably more interesting than JCR or CMPS, but it's not a top venue for folks at R1s who care most about impact.
STILL have no substantive critique of DN's editorship?
Citation practices and impact factors differ across disciplines -psych cites everyone- and even within disciplines. Political theorists cite very few. Are they going to hire chemists to teach World Politics? Are they going to abolish the polisci dept? OK, maybe one day., but because of enrollment, not IF.
The point is the goal of being editor should not be to maintain an impact factor to advance the careers of people doing hackish, soulless work!That's a racket, not a scholarly enterprise. You really think chemists will respect you b/c of the impact factor of this or that journal? Economists don't respect you. Psychologists don't respect you. Natural scientists, if they think about you, don't ether.
We are now several pages into this thread and other than one article re Clancy, no one has even bothered to say what was so awful about DN's ISQ. Just no interest in substance whatsoever. Very telling. Come on, how about some "X and only X is science and DN is no scientist"?
LOL. I knew I'd just need to let you hold court. You do more good for my argument than I ever could. -
1. As a reviewer and author I have seen more than a few cases of 2-1 getting through. Not a majority, but it happens and rightly so. Why even have an editor if no judgment is to be exercised?
2 "top journals stay top because editors focus on rules where they send papers to people who publish a lot and just say no if there's any dissent, so only stuff that is typically well done quant work gets through easy." is
A. not true
B. to the extent it happens it is really a recipe for conformist hackery and zero interesting work.Nexon put too much of his own preferences into the journal - preferences which influenced desk rejects - and also used his position to influence decisions with split referees etc. This resulted in the articles published taking on more of a trajectory he wanted, whereas most top journals stay top because editors focus on rules where they send papers to people who publish a lot and just say no if there's any dissent, so only stuff that is typically well done quant work gets through easy. What he ended up doing is running what is supposed to be a flagship journal more like a niche journal, which is fine, but you're not going to be a top journal like that in terms of IF. That said, it is probably more interesting than JCR or CMPS, but it's not a top venue for folks at R1s who care most about impact.
STILL have no substantive critique of DN's editorship?
Citation practices and impact factors differ across disciplines -psych cites everyone- and even within disciplines. Political theorists cite very few. Are they going to hire chemists to teach World Politics? Are they going to abolish the polisci dept? OK, maybe one day., but because of enrollment, not IF.
The point is the goal of being editor should not be to maintain an impact factor to advance the careers of people doing hackish, soulless work!That's a racket, not a scholarly enterprise. You really think chemists will respect you b/c of the impact factor of this or that journal? Economists don't respect you. Psychologists don't respect you. Natural scientists, if they think about you, don't ether.
We are now several pages into this thread and other than one article re Clancy, no one has even bothered to say what was so awful about DN's ISQ. Just no interest in substance whatsoever. Very telling. Come on, how about some "X and only X is science and DN is no scientist"?
LOL. I knew I'd just need to let you hold court. You do more good for my argument than I ever could. -
^You still haven't told us who all these "hacks" you're talking about actually are. First you said Nexon's noble quest was derailed by "hacks," which seems strange, given that he seemed to publish people other than those you later say engage in "hackery". Who are the "hacks"?
-
BTW, since you've asked repeatedly, here's the list of problems people here have listed about Dan's editorship:
- Grad student desk rejects
- Not understanding the problems associated with a massive increase in desk rejections
- Running a flagship journal like a niche journal
- Openly and demonstrably biasing publication decisions against specific epistemology, while claiming publicly (including on PSR) to have done no such thing
- Publishing obviously subpar articles, devoid of theory and empirics, like the Tom Clancy one.You responses to these claims have ranged from "so what? IR is awful [as someone who's not a member of that field] to "prestige only matters to hacks".
Is this where we're at, more or less?
-
You keep citing ONE example of a bad article. How many articles did he publish? Surely well over 100.
If he was biased, you and many other editors have the opposite bias, so one guy goes another way one time and it's the end of the world.
All journals desk reject far more than they used to, because people submit far more half-baked papers in a desperate effort to please the bean counters like you who judge someone by toting up IF and other things in lieu of reading. I don't know what was done at this journal, but that absolutely should be decided by editors, not grad students.
BTW, since you've asked repeatedly, here's the list of problems people here have listed about Dan's editorship:
- Grad student desk rejects
- Not understanding the problems associated with a massive increase in desk rejections
- Running a flagship journal like a niche journal
- Openly and demonstrably biasing publication decisions against specific epistemology, while claiming publicly (including on PSR) to have done no such thing
- Publishing obviously subpar articles, devoid of theory and empirics, like the Tom Clancy one.
You responses to these claims have ranged from "so what? IR is awful [as someone who's not a member of that field] to "prestige only matters to hacks".
Is this where we're at, more or less? -
^It's not the end of the world, per your second point. He just turned a good journal into a bad one, in terms of how it is viewed by both the field and the academy. You seem to either be fine with that, or to think that prestige is inconsequential. That's fine, I guess. But it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It did.