Thoughts on Publishing and Survival in Academia

1
Thoughts on Publishing and Survival in Academia

• Comments prepared for presentation at the PRISMS
  2002 Conference, Stanford University, Saturday,
  March 2, 2002.
• Steve Nahmias
• Operations and MIS Department
• Santa Clara University

2
My background

• Referee since 1972
• Associate Editor (Man. Sci) 1980-1991
• Associate Editor (NRL) 1984-1994
• Area Editor Mfg (and later) Suppy chains (OR)
  1994 - 1999
• Senior Editor, MSOM Journal. From inception of
  the journal through the present.
• Author of Production and Operations Analysis
  (currently in 4th edition)

3
On Writing Textbooks

• DONT DO IT!
• (at least not BT (before tenure) and probably
  not BFP (before promotion to full professor.).

4
Publishing Strategy

• Because of longer turnaround times for journals,
  you must get a lot of papers out quickly. To do
  so
• 1) Try to focus your attention on one or two
  specific areas
• 2) Be persistent. Revise as often as needed.
  (Referees are not always your friends.)
• 3) Submit to a reasonable slate of journals. Find
  out what journals are valued by your
  institutional colleagues.

5
Refereeing

• Take your turn in the barrel. The blind
  refereeing process relies on the good will of the
  professional community. If you expect to get
  reasonable treatment as an author, help out the
  associate editors when they call. BUT
• 1) Dont overdo it. Two or three papers at a time
  is plenty, especially in BT years.
• 2) Dont be a jerk. Its not junk just because
  you didnt write it.

6
Role of the Associate editor

• Identify good referees. Good reliable,
  technically competent, fair.
• Evaluate both the paper and the referee reports.
  Are the reports consistent, reasonable? Are the
  revisions requested reasonable?
• Send a clear signal to the Area Editor regarding
  what should be done with this paper. If you do
  your job, the Area Editor should not have to read
  the paper.

7
Role of the Area Editor

• Pick a good stable of associate editors
• Check for consistency in recommendations
• Do an independent reading of the paper when its
  necessary.
• Be prepared to enlist the aid of an umpire if
  reports are inconsistent or authors file a
  complaint.

8
Who Sets the Standards?

• Nobody. Everybody.
• Moving Target.
• Random nature of the refereeing process
• Type 1 and Type 2 errors.
• Is there a better system than the blind referee
  process?

9
What is publishable work?

• Element of originality, contribution to field
• Technical correctness
• Presentation quality
• Subjective judgment of the reviewer

10
Appropriateness of Journals

• Is a paper suitable for the journal? Who decides?
  Answer strictly a judgment call by editorial
  staff. May be made at Editor-in-chief level, Area
  Editor level, or recommended by associate editor
  and/or referees. Final decision always rests with
  Editor In Chief, although this decision is
  usually made at Area Editor level.

11
Those Awful Delays

• This problem has grown worse. Typical scenario
  time to first review is 1 year or more. If not
  rejected, multiple revisions are likely, each
  having review times of 6 months or more. Total
  time from submission to acceptance may be as much
  as 3 years, and queue of accepted papers is
  several years.
• Bottom line It could take 5-6 years from
  submission to appearance.

12
What to do?

• Set up a system like MSOM with strictly enforced
  review deadlines.
• All reviewers are part of a pre-appointed board
• Pay referees to respond on time (carrot)
• Do not consider submissions from delinquent
  referees or aes (stick)