Students, when engaging with the peer review process, there are several do's and don'ts to be aware of. #AcademicTwitter
1. Read the style guide. If the cutoff is 30pgs, don't send in 52pg papers.
2. Don't send in 52pgs no matter what unless it is a law review.
1. Read the style guide. If the cutoff is 30pgs, don't send in 52pg papers.
2. Don't send in 52pgs no matter what unless it is a law review.
3. Don't ask the editor to pre-review your paper for you.
4. And if you do, don't send in bullet points!
4. And if you do, don't send in bullet points!
5. Make sure that the paper follows a standard structure. Theory, hypotheses, data, analysis, results discussion.
6. If the hypotheses or data section has a bunch of theory citations, that's a red flag. Esp. If they are new to the reader.
6. If the hypotheses or data section has a bunch of theory citations, that's a red flag. Esp. If they are new to the reader.
7. If you are not testing it you don't mention it. Because the reviewers will ask you to test it.
8. Make sure the theories match your level of analysis. If you are analyzing red apples, theories about the history of orchards are not generally relevant.
8. Make sure the theories match your level of analysis. If you are analyzing red apples, theories about the history of orchards are not generally relevant.
9. Make sure that the data and the theory match and that any generalizations are supported by the data.
10. Subgroup analysis requires prior theorizing otherwise it is ad hoc. That duck hunters are in fact very different is something I should be alerted to in the theory.
10. Subgroup analysis requires prior theorizing otherwise it is ad hoc. That duck hunters are in fact very different is something I should be alerted to in the theory.
11. Use appendices judiciously. More stuff doesn't mean higher quality. It means more stuff. And someone has to go thru the stuff.
12. Don't use 3 tables for something that can be presented in one, e.g. subgroup analyses.
12. Don't use 3 tables for something that can be presented in one, e.g. subgroup analyses.
13. Replications with multiple measures of a concept are great. For the appendix.
14. Tell a clear story. If your story has the clarity of a Trump justification, you can make an excellent cabinet secretary, but it is doubtful that you will pass peer review.
14. Tell a clear story. If your story has the clarity of a Trump justification, you can make an excellent cabinet secretary, but it is doubtful that you will pass peer review.
15. Try the "mother test". If a non-expert (in my case, my mom) reads the paper can she playback the story clearly? If she can't give you a linear narrative, that's a flag.
16. Avoid jargon to the degree possible and when using it be very clear about the meaning. Words that end in "-tion" (politicization, polarization, racialization, sexualization, etc) can be muddy and allow for muddled thinking.
17. Edit. Edit. Edit. Leave it in the drawer for a week and then edit some more.
18. Did I mention edit?
18. Did I mention edit?
19. Use the abstract as a way to check on your logic and theory. Follow the style that @SSQJournal uses, it helps.
20. Graphs are great but make sure they are clearly labeled and the lines differentiate well in black and white. Cause variations in dotted lines are hard to tell.
20. Graphs are great but make sure they are clearly labeled and the lines differentiate well in black and white. Cause variations in dotted lines are hard to tell.
