Tacky Editors

11 September 2006 at 11:34 am Nicolai Foss 7 comments

| Nicolai Foss |

Here is one more entry in another O&M feuilleton, namely our “Jerehmiads” on publication in management and related fields (e.g., here and here.) (The term was introduced by Omar at orgtheory.net, who despite being a brand-new assistant professor is also a specialist in the publication game; see his comments here.)

I recently had a paper rejected for one of the top-4 management journals. It is the third time I have been rejected from this particular journal. However, every time something a little weird has happened: 3-4 days after the rejection, the editor has approached me, asking whether I would like to review a paper. I can understand the rationale: Now that I have enjoyed the service of this journal, I need to pay back. But, isn’t it just a little bit tacky? Or am I too wimpy? (or too much like Jeremiah?). Anybody who has had similar experiences?

Entry filed under: - Foss -, Ephemera.

Structure and Agency: A Response to Felin and Foss Introducing Guest Blogger David Gordon

7 Comments Add your own

1. Jeff | 11 September 2006 at 1:29 pm

Yes, it’s tacky. And I still can’t figure out what “Jerehmiads” means.
2. Peter Klein | 11 September 2006 at 1:33 pm

I think we all mean “jeremiads.”
3. fabiorojas | 11 September 2006 at 1:56 pm

Tacky but smart. Even if the editor rejected your article, they also think you are smart enough to be consulted for a review. And trust me, good reviewers are hard to find.
4. unhappy academics and the “reverse focus effect” « orgtheory.net | 13 September 2006 at 12:34 pm

[…] There is another empirical implication: fields with more scarcely distributed but highly public reputational symbols (such as Nobel prizes or field medals) and in which there is relatively more consensus regarding the reputational hierarchy and the distribution of rewards, will be composed of crabbier academics; thus economists will in general tend to be crabbier and full of complaints than sociologists about highly abstract matters, even though there would be no differences across fields in the actual enjoyment that economists get out of their intellectual labor. […]
5. angryreviewer? | 14 September 2006 at 3:55 am

That may explain the wealth of seemingly angry reviewers, who start reviewing a paper at the request of the editor soon after hearing bad news.
6. Bo | 14 September 2006 at 3:59 am

I have had a similar experience and thus I don’t attribute it to the fact that you are smart (because I am certainly not according to one of the reviewers..) – it is simple: When you submit an article your name is added to their list of potential reviewers. The timing may be a bit off, however, perhaps the editor is thinking: “hey this guy just got a rejection so he will have plenty of time to review now” – if you got an R&R you would be spending more time on revising your own manuscript…

this raises then the next question: could it be that the editor is in need of a reviewer and thus he decides to reject your paper so that you will have time to review instead? More likely, he is scanning his database for recent submissions and/or recent letters that went out to submitters and then your name pops up – perhaps even alphabetically?
7. Bruce Tether | 19 September 2006 at 5:01 am

William Starbuck’s recent book – published by Oxford – I forget the title – is interesting on this – it shows that there are actually low correlations between the reviewers recommendations even for the ‘best journals’ – so getting published can be a bit of a lottery, and editors have to use their discretion if they are to publish anything at all.