The conflict between writing more and getting in the best journals

By -
I was talking over Skype with a co-author today, and he remarked, "Well, if our paper does not make it in Journal X [our first target], perhaps we should submit to Journal Y?"

I replied, "It is very nice to be thinking ahead, but my papers always are accepted by the first journal I submit them to, so there is no need to worry."

While I was joking around and this isn't quite true, it is nearly so. And that got me thinking: A lot of people, upon hearing this, would conclude, "Gene, you're not shooting high enough: if you are always getting accepted by the first journal you submit to, there is a very good chance you could've been accepted by an even better journal if you had only tried there first."

I think this is probably true. But I have a very hard time acting on this advice; my attitude is always "Let's get the damn thing published and get on to writing something else." I find the idea of spending my time trotting a paper around a circuit of journals for several years soul crushing.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more