Wow. Another white woman studying poor people in Asia. How unique...
SP (Harvard -> Oxford -> Stanford) still hasn't published a paper
-
2 years is not much. You clearly don't know how long it takes to get something from submission to print. People can have different paths. Some have stuff hit every couple of months. Others, have everything hit at the same time. Maybe spend more time looking at yourself than at others.
-
Her only solo pub (non peer-reviewed, in a volume on Latin America edited by JD, who sat on her committee) is heavily plagiarized. SP took lots of the theory, design, wording, references from a conference paper by someone else, and replaced the original set of countries with Latin American countries. I know because I attended both the earlier conference and a conference where SP presented. Like PP and MRS in econ who plagiarized a paper by a post-doc to get an AER pub (read about that scandal at econjobrumos). I have notified the interested parties.
Two years out of the Ph.D. and her only publication is with her undergraduate adviser.Is this for real? Who's the author of the paper she plagiarized and what happened to them on the market?
-
two years? That's too short to produce a great work, unless you free ride.
Seriously? Someone who spent 6 years in grad school and 2 years in a postdoc hasn't "had time" to produce anything in the past 8 years?
Despite having no teaching obligations?
Despite having virtually unlimited resources relative to their peers in programs ranked below the top 10?
Despite having summers free to pursue their research instead of having to teach summer school or find outside employment to make ends meet?
Despite the major advantage of having Harvard/Oxford as their institutional affiliations during the review process, had they chosen to submit any work?
Despite being among the best-connected network of renowned scholars for 8 years?
Why are so many CHYMPS people are so f***ing lazy? Everyone else is expected to publish several pieces as an ABD as a minimum requirement for the long list at a bottom-feeder R1, and yet many of those who meet that requirement will apply everywhere and still be unemployed.
So I guess the question is this: What do you people even do all day?U dunno if he has rnr ... And top journals take years to publish in..
-
U dunno if he has rnr ... And top journals take years to publish in..
Not really. Review time tends to be negatively correlated with journal ranking in poli sci. Top general and subfield journals operate smoothly and fairly quickly. The second and third tiers... not so much.
Perhaps if a paper gets into a vicious revise-and-resubmit cycle, but regardless that is just one paper. Obviously after Harvard and two years at Nuffield we'd assume a candidate has at least 4 publication-ready papers. The chances of them all landing in r&r hell is vanishingly small. The simpler explanation is yet another Harvard grad who can't really produce.
-
U dunno if he has rnr ... And top journals take years to publish in..
Not really. Review time tends to be negatively correlated with journal ranking in poli sci. Top general and subfield journals operate smoothly and fairly quickly. The second and third tiers... not so much.
Perhaps if a paper gets into a vicious revise-and-resubmit cycle, but regardless that is just one paper. Obviously after Harvard and two years at Nuffield we'd assume a candidate has at least 4 publication-ready papers. The chances of them all landing in r&r hell is vanishingly small. The simpler explanation is yet another Harvard grad who can't really produce.this entire thread is nonsense, but this is the most nonsense of them all.
first off, getting tenure at stanford in expectation means publishing some combination of a top-press book, a set of N top articles, and a handful of other published pieces. obviously the more the better, but quality is weighted over quantity. one consequence is there are incentives to take longer on important pieces to increase the chances these land at the top.
another consequence is incentives to always submit work at the top journal and work down, instead of targeting out the gate. and working through this top track can take years. e.g. APSR 1st reviews can take 4 to 6 months, AJPS around 3 to 5 months, and JOP 3 to 5 months. let's say you get rejected at APSR and AJPS after 8 to 10 months of reviews plus intervening revisions, then you get a R&R at JOP after 3 months of 1st reviews. You revise in 4 to 6 weeks, then resubmit and wait another 2.5 months for a decision. thus add on another 3 to 4 months before an acceptance. that's a year+ from first submission to a decision, and this is an fairly optimistic case. i've had papers go from a R&R at top-3, rejected after 2+ years there in review and multiple R&Rs, to rejections at the 5 next journals, for an acceptance after more than 4 years in review.
and books take years, including at least a year in review. so unless you submitted your work in grad school (which can be risky, e.g., you miss all the major feedback you get from the job search and later), then it's easy to see how 2 to 3 years you haven't published too much.
obviously point is wait until year 3 of tenure-track when progress has to first be demonstrated to begin to judge a record.
-
so unless you submitted your work in grad school (which can be risky, e.g., you miss all the major feedback you get from the job search and later),
Well, unless you didn't go to a top-5, in which case not submitting your work in grad school means you don't get a job.
-
so unless you submitted your work in grad school (which can be risky, e.g., you miss all the major feedback you get from the job search and later),
Well, unless you didn't go to a top-5, in which case not submitting your work in grad school means you don't get a job.
agreed, the incentives are different. which may be why many at lower-ranked programs get so chaffed about HYP grads who take longer to publish or underperform expectations. publishing more and earlier on isn't what the top places care about -- they want to see big impact in work at the end of 5 to 6 years.
-
What is "big impact" in Political Science? Give examples. How is it measured?
so unless you submitted your work in grad school (which can be risky, e.g., you miss all the major feedback you get from the job search and later),
Well, unless you didn't go to a top-5, in which case not submitting your work in grad school means you don't get a job.agreed, the incentives are different. which may be why many at lower-ranked programs get so chaffed about HYP grads who take longer to publish or underperform expectations. publishing more and earlier on isn't what the top places care about -- they want to see big impact in work at the end of 5 to 6 years.