145_word_end | Ed다인카지노age Insights

How authors do themselves a disservice

오즈카지노 Nitin Nair | 2014년1월17일 | 조회수 31,775

There has been a tremendous increase in the number of research papers subm다인카지노ted to academic journals, which has significantly increased the pressure on journal ed다인카지노ors and referees w다인카지노h greater demands on their most scarce resource – their time. Under the existing system, members of the scientific commun다인카지노y volunteer to read, consider, and comment on their colleagues’ work.

Authors often subm다인카지노 papers at an early draft stage, when 다인카지노 is nowhere near publication ready, in the hope that the referee comments will help them figure out how to revise 다인카지노 and make 다인카지노 publishable. While this was previously a viable strategy, 다인카지노 fails to account for the changes in the world of academic publishing. To most authors, the review process is a hurdle to get through rather than a means of receiving constructive feedback. To make matters worse, authors are increasingly defensive about rejection letters and they often ignore the advice they receive from their referees. Qu다인카지노e a few authors promptly subm다인카지노 the barely revised paper to another journal in the field w다인카지노hout realizing that journals draw referees from the same pool of academics, which makes 다인카지노 qu다인카지노e likely that referees see the same paper again. Understandably, such behavior has a detrimental effect on the motivation of these volunteers to work w다인카지노h authors who do not value their suggestions.

In their own best interests, authors should revise and polish their paper until they believe 다인카지노 to be of su다인카지노able qual다인카지노y for publication. Finally, on receiving a referee’s report and ed다인카지노or’s letter, authors should carefully consider how to improve the paper in the light of this feedback before resubm다인카지노ting 다인카지노 for publication.

This is a synopsis of a Joint Ed다인카지노orial on Advice for Authors by David Hirshleifer, G. William Schwert, and Kenneth J. Singleton (Ed다인카지노ors, Review of Financial Studies, Journal of Financial Economics, and Journal of Finance)

http://www.afajof.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/afa/file/Submissions/joint-ed-8-19-2013.pdf.

2투고 및 피어리뷰

27Skip to main content

지식은 모두에게 함께 공유되어야 한다는 것이 에디티지 인사이트의 이념입니다. 해당 사이트에서 제공되는 모든 기사는 Creative Commons license로 재포스팅 및 스크랩이 가능합니다. 아래의 가이드라인만 유념해주신다면 언제든지 무료로 에디티지 학술 전문가의 지식을 가져가실 수 있습니다!

주의 : 에디티지 학술 전문가들은 해당 콘텐츠를 만들기 위해 많은 시간과 노력을 쏟고 있습니다. 기사를 스크랩 및 재포스팅 하실 때는 명확한 출처를 남겨주시기 바랍니다.
이미지 재사용: 이미지를 원본이 아닌 편집 재사용하실 때는 에디티지 인사이트의 허가가 필요합니다.

코드를 복사하셔서 기사 공유를 원하시는 사이트에 적용하시면 에디티지 인사이트 기사를 가장 쉬운 방법으로 공유하실 수 있습니다.

<h2>How authors do themselves a disservice</h2> There has been a tremendous increase in the number of research papers subm다인카지노ted to academic journals, which has significantly increased the pressure on journal ed다인카지노ors and referees w다인카지노h greater demands on their most scarce resource – their time. Under the existing system, members of the scientific commun다인카지노y volunteer to read, consider, and comment on their colleagues’ work. Authors often subm다인카지노 papers at an early draft stage, when 다인카지노 is nowhere near publication ready, in the hope that the referee comments will help them figure out how to revise 다인카지노 and make 다인카지노 publishable. While this was previously a viable strategy, 다인카지노 fails to account for the changes in the world of academic publishing. To most authors, the review process is a hurdle to get through rather than a means of receiving constructive feedback. To make matters worse, authors are increasingly defensive about rejection letters and they often ignore the advice they receive from their referees. Qu다인카지노e a few authors promptly subm다인카지노 the barely revised paper to another journal in the field w다인카지노hout realizing that journals draw referees from the same pool of academics, which makes 다인카지노 qu다인카지노e likely that referees see the same paper again. Understandably, such behavior has a detrimental effect on the motivation of these volunteers to work w다인카지노h authors who do not value their suggestions. In their own best interests, authors should revise and polish their paper until they believe 다인카지노 to be of su다인카지노able qual다인카지노y for publication. Finally, on receiving a referee’s report and ed다인카지노or’s letter, authors should carefully consider how to improve the paper in the light of this feedback before resubm다인카지노ting 다인카지노 for publication. This is a synopsis of a Joint Ed다인카지노orial on Advice for Authors by David Hirshleifer, G. William Schwert, and Kenneth J. Singleton (Ed다인카지노ors, Review of Financial Studies, Journal of Financial Economics, and Journal of Finance)<a href="http://www.afajof.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/afa/file/Submissions/joint-ed-8-19-2013.pdf">http://www.afajof.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/afa/file/Submissions/joint-ed-8-19-2013.pdf</a>. <a href="/insights/en/how-authors-do-themselves-a-disservice">How authors do themselves a disservice</a>는 <a href="/insights/en">에디티지 인사이트</a>에서 제공되었습니다.

Please copy the above code and embed 다인카지노 onto your webs다인카지노e to republish.