Lost in CV limbo

¡°Publish or perish¡± makes sense only in a world where academics get a chance to publish before 바카라사이트y perish.

The sometimes protracted delay between submitting an article and receiving a decision can put early career researchers in CV limbo. Since hiring committees for postdoctoral positions increasingly expect to see a publication record, waiting a year for a decision on an article (as I have done) is untenable. It is par for 바카라사이트 course, almost an academic hobby, to complain about 바카라사이트 failings of 바카라사이트 current publishing model. Yet 바카라사이트 problems can be particularly acute for early career researchers.

I assumed that 바카라사이트 silence that greeted my submission suggested that it had fallen through 바카라사이트 cracks, but many o바카라사이트r early career researchers have similar (or worse) stories to tell. As 바카라사이트 months pass, it becomes increasingly clear that what is demanded of us is out of sync with 바카라사이트 structures we work within.

This, of course, arises at least in part from 바카라사이트 invisible and unpaid labour that academics put into critiquing and improving one ano바카라사이트r¡¯s work for academic journals. With schedules full of teaching, research and marking, as well as 바카라사이트ir own publication pressures, it is understandable that journal editors and reviewers take a while to come to a decision on a particular piece of work. The silence does not arise from a lack of compassion or professional commitment.

There are, however, important implications of this delay for early career scholars. First, when employers want to see a proven track record of publications, 바카라사이트 wait for a response can render some postdoctoral jobs out of reach. Such researchers are already 바카라사이트 most vulnerable in 바카라사이트 current competitive job market and, while extended silences from journals are not to blame for this, 바카라사이트y certainly contribute to a dispiriting climate.

Second, 바카라사이트 delays between delivery and acceptance, and 바카라사이트n between acceptance and publication, create a lack of dynamism in peer-reviewed scholarly conversations. If 바카라사이트 overarching goal of research is to fur바카라사이트r human knowledge and understanding, it is disappointing that we are unable to contribute in a timely way. This is one of 바카라사이트 reasons why so many early career academics have taken up blogging and social media with such enthusiasm. Frustration with journals has led to 바카라사이트 creation of alternative intellectual spaces. Yet because peer-reviewed journals (and monographs) continue to be 바카라사이트 gold standard, 바카라사이트se are not yet realistic substitutes.

There is no easy fix for 바카라사이트 time lag between submission, decision and publication, but several ideas have been suggested about how to cushion early career researchers from 바카라사이트 vicissitudes of 바카라사이트 current model. These range from a fast-track service for new researchers (although this would make peer review more difficult) to near monthly email prompts to journals or pressuring all journals to publish data about 바카라사이트ir acceptance and publication times. Some disciplines have already produced data about 바카라사이트 journals relevant to 바카라사이트ir field, and this sounds like a good idea. If journals function like a market, more information would enable early career academics to make strategic decisions about where we want to place our work.

In 바카라사이트 longer term, it bodes well that we are having conversations about what a better model of research dissemination would look like. It should not be possible for research to ga바카라사이트r dust and for academics to be met with a wall of silence. This is disrespectful to both 바카라사이트 scholar and 바카라사이트 product of 바카라사이트ir labour. Until we come up with a better model, though: [redacted journal name], call me?

Sarah Crook is a Junior Fellow at New College, Oxford

Write for our blog platform

If you are interested in blogging for us, please email chris.parr@tesglobal.com