Friday, April 15, 2011

Place Your Bets

I have two papers under review right now. Each has made it past the referees and is sitting on the desk of an Editor-In-Chief waiting for a decision. One has been sitting there since this morning; the other has been there for almost seven weeks. (The second one also spent a number of weeks in transit between the referees and the editor, and has been clear of the refs for longer than the first one has been under review at the current journal.)

So the question is, which one will get rejected first? The one with the quicker procedures, or the one with the seven-week head start?

--Mr. Zero

12 comments:

Xenophon said...

Oh, come on. You know we're all hoping they'll both be accepted.

What you should ask is which will you get a response on first (accept, reject, revise and resubmit).

I think the odds are 50/50, because seven weeks is nothing compared to the total time you'll wait. I think you'll get one response in November, and the other in mid-2012.

Word Verification: spera. Hope it's sooner.

Anonymous said...

I know of a reliable method for predicting these matters, but it involves animal entrails and the casting of runes. Accurate to within 36 months!

zombie said...

You're going to get accepted by the quick one, and a R&R from the slowpokes.

Although it would help to know the journals. In my experience, there is no correlation between speed of processing and likelihood of rejection.

Anonymous said...

Fast, ANALYSIS, rejection...

Slow, MIND, rejection...

How's that?

Really, I hope that you get good comments and rejections, you make the papers better and you journal up and publish in better places IF that's possible. If not, then I hope they both make it now.

Good luck....

Asstro said...

I don't have anything to say, but I so love my word verification that I have to report it:

hersmerf

Run with it.

(At least one will be an R&R.)

Mr. Zero said...

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I am open to and hopeful for the possibility that one or the other of these papers will be accepted. I'm pretty proud of them both, and I would really love it if at least one of them would get accepted.

I predict that the "quick" one will have a decision by the middle of next week, and the one with the head start will take another four weeks.

Anonymous said...

Zero,

Both rejected. You lose.

Anonymous said...

Random question for readers: I've noticed some people's CVs sporting a creative "invited talks" vs "submitted talks" or "peer-reviewed talks" or whatever distinction. It's pretty. I like it. I don't get it.

At first, I thought "ah, invited talks must be talks which one is invited to give without having to submit a paper/abstract." I noticed that some very recent PhDs had a few of those, and that surprised me, but whatever. Then I noticed that some of them were from conferences to which I've submitted papers/abstracts. Now I know the people in question weren't keynote speakers, so I am puzzled. Is there a sense of "invited" here that I'm unfamiliar with? Is it a language game familiar to others?

Oh, and my word is "citur." As in, a mystical creature with the lower body of a man and the upper body of a horse. And the flavor of a lemon.

Anonymous said...

"Random question for readers: I've noticed some people's CVs sporting a creative "invited talks" vs "submitted talks" or "peer-reviewed talks" or whatever distinction. It's pretty. I like it. I don't get it."

Some tenure committees make a distinction between peer-reviewed talks, i.e. talks in which your abstract or paper was (blind) reviewed by your peers and invited talks in which someone you know asked you to be on a panel or to comment on a paper.

As a result, many folks differentiate between these types of talks on their CVs.

ruben said...

Maybe segments of eachone

Anonymous said...

"Some tenure committees make a distinction between peer-reviewed talks, i.e. talks in which your abstract or paper was (blind) reviewed by your peers and invited talks in which someone you know asked you to be on a panel or to comment on a paper."

I get that. This is the source of the confusion: I've seen people list under "invited talks" conferences that only have (1) keynote speakers, (2) submissions, and (3) commentators. But they are neither keynote speakers nor commentators. So either some major conferences are secretly inviting people, or "invited" means something besides what it seems to mean.

Oh, and my word is "twelat," as in, "I think it is inappropriate to make your impressionable students sit through one of those twelat movies."

Ben said...

Invited vs. submitted:

Could some be listing, under the first heading, talks they have been invited (i.e. accepted) to give following a submission, while using the latter to mean 'under review' (i.e. submitted but not (yet) accepted)?