On Twitter, everyone says she's so wonderful.
On PSR, everyone says she's terrible.
So what is the truth?
ISQ Tennessee Team
-
I don’t know KW or BP well. I’ve interacted pleasantly with both. And I of course agree this place is mostly a cesspool.
But can we also agree that there’s some irony in editors of a double-blind peer-reviewed journal decrying an anonymous discussion board? Once you sift out the alt-right trolls and ad hominem, you’re left with one of the few places people can freely speak truth to power. Isn’t that what blind review is all about?
-
I don’t know KW or BP well. I’ve interacted pleasantly with both. And I of course agree this place is mostly a cesspool.
But can we also agree that there’s some irony in editors of a double-blind peer-reviewed journal decrying an anonymous discussion board? Once you sift out the alt-right trolls and ad hominem, you’re left with one of the few places people can freely speak truth to power. Isn’t that what blind review is all about?And the idea that these Twitter people would take criticism nicely, with no repercussions on a person's career ("unaccomplished grad students and jaded under placed assit. prof" as per above) is laughable. Just look at how irate she is of the criticism from trolls.
And yes, it's possible I am underplaced. Not UTK underplaced, but possibly underplaced.
-
I love all the unaccomplished grad students and jaded under placed assit. profs who would rather waste their time bashing other scholars than trying to publish. KW is a great scholar and a kind person
I'm tenured in a better department than KW. As for publication record, if KW is a "great scholar," then I'm Sir Isaac Newton.
-
Less than 2 month turnaround with three reviews of fairly decent quality. I'd wager that most people in this thread are grad students who have never submitted anything in their lives and are bashing them because Tennessee is "ranked" "lower" than Georgetown.
? georgetown isnt even T10 bro, it's sh.it too
Georgetown is easily T10 in IR if you count across all departments and schools (sfs, policy, business, gov).
-
"I'm tenured in a better department than KW. As for publication record, if KW is a "great scholar," then I'm Sir Isaac Newton."
By the way, tenured professor, you should check out the new rankings. The University of Phoenix falls far lower than UTK.Lol sick burn because you're implying that the poster teaches at the University of Phoenix, which is an online for profit outfit. This would be very embarrassing to teach there, which is why this burn is of the sick kind.
-
Lol "business"
Less than 2 month turnaround with three reviews of fairly decent quality. I'd wager that most people in this thread are grad students who have never submitted anything in their lives and are bashing them because Tennessee is "ranked" "lower" than Georgetown.
? georgetown isnt even T10 bro, it's sh.it too
Georgetown is easily T10 in IR if you count across all departments and schools (sfs, policy, business, gov). -
I don't have a horse in this fight, but here are some general thoughts.
1) All editors run journals according to some preconceived biases, whether favoring certain methods, certain universities or outright corruption toward people from a certain country (APSR Germans). That's the benefit of being an editor, you can be a dictator, effectively and do whatever you want for your term with the journal.
2) The people who submit to a journal have no way of holding editors accountable. KW is wrong, I cannot just write to a journal and tell them they suck. The editor, who is a dictator, will make sure I don't publish there and possible that other people I know won't publish there. North Korea-style. And if I write anonymously in some way, there's no way they will listen.
3) So, PSR and other mechanisms like it become literally the only way to hold editors accountable for their biases, laziness or other bad qualities. Is it remotely a good way? No, but it is the only way.
4) So when KW plays some victim act about being trashed on PSR, it rings pretty hollow. You get to be a dictator in the discipline for however many years. If you don't like it because you can't publish in the journal you are the dictator of or because someone trashes you on an anonymous board, then quit. It's a pretty small price to pay, IMHO.
-
I’d normally agree with this, but it doesn’t describe KW. Instead, she’s lazy AF and is just an all around poor scholar. I’m not talking pub record but the actual pubs. Her arguments are so very bad, and she often recycles older text from previous articles. I don’t know how she even got to UTK, which is an ok place.
So she doesn’t have the brains to have a vision much less the desire to implement it. Instead, she thinks political science is neat because she gets to travel. Those are her words mostly, and that’s about the whole sum of those moving parts.
Last, UTK got the journal because the other editor, the one doing everything, is best buds from grad school with the 800lb gorilla on the publications committee. Ok, maybe 250-275lb. Anyway, there was no vision.
I don't have a horse in this fight, but here are some general thoughts.
1) All editors run journals according to some preconceived biases, whether favoring certain methods, certain universities or outright corruption toward people from a certain country (APSR Germans). That's the benefit of being an editor, you can be a dictator, effectively and do whatever you want for your term with the journal.
2) The people who submit to a journal have no way of holding editors accountable. KW is wrong, I cannot just write to a journal and tell them they suck. The editor, who is a dictator, will make sure I don't publish there and possible that other people I know won't publish there. North Korea-style. And if I write anonymously in some way, there's no way they will listen.
3) So, PSR and other mechanisms like it become literally the only way to hold editors accountable for their biases, laziness or other bad qualities. Is it remotely a good way? No, but it is the only way.
4) So when KW plays some victim act about being trashed on PSR, it rings pretty hollow. You get to be a dictator in the discipline for however many years. If you don't like it because you can't publish in the journal you are the dictator of or because someone trashes you on an anonymous board, then quit. It's a pretty small price to pay, IMHO. -
Why is ISQ always the IR journal being bashed on here? The Indiana team, then Nexon, then KW: PSR is obsessed with ISQ. IO could be (has been?) run by the lord of darkness' lazier, dumber offspring, and you all would still be talking about ISQ.
There's been plenty of complaining about IO, particularly under the Pevehouse editorship.
That said, IO and IS are both club journals run by particular cliques within the profession and making no secret of that fact. There's also not much transparency around them because they're run entirely by the insiders.
ISQ is different because it's the ISA journal, so 1) there's an expectation that it will be run in an open-minded, meritocratic, and non-clubby fashion and 2) there's enough transparency to give people something to complain about.
-
Not my area of IR, so I didn't know her until now. But looking at that CV, I see 15 years post-PhD, during which we see nothing in IO or even ISQ, and no top journals. Most everything coauthored and still mediocre placement. A Routledge book and a Uni of GA Press (didn't know they published IR work).
I mean, it's a fine record for someone from that era who ended up where she ended up. But the idea she should be co-editor in chief of ISQ is nonsense. Last time she published her own work in a respected journal was three years before she got her PhD.
That she commented about how this meant she could no longer publish in ISQ is hilarious, for the obvious reason she's never published in a top subfield journal.