[Closed] Is there an academic in the house?!

[Charlie Phillips]

To submit an article to a journal, you should obtain copies of articles that have been published in that particular journal, and model your article on them in terms of structure, content, and length.

That just about sums up everything that's wrong about academia and why it's so boring to read academic journals.

Bugger original content; just follow the herd.

[zyzzx]

I'm in the sciences, not political science, so I may be off base, but a literature review section of a few pages seems awfully long to me. In my field we will give an introduction to the problem or area (citing often along the way), and we will mention previous work if it's something that we're building on, modifying, or comparing to. So some of it might go in the intro, some in the methods, some in the discussion, etc. Generally, papers mentioned don't get more than a sentence or two, and often a lot of citations are lumped together (ie. "over the past 20 years, the relationship between x and y has been increasingly recognized (cite 7 papers)"). This creates something of a lit review, but it isn't presented or really organized as such. You shouldn't present a lit review just to present a lit review. Construct your argument and mention and cite previous work as it relates to what you're doing.

As to reviewers that don't get it, I've had a few of those. It can be frustrating, but remember that although you know your point inside and out, the readers are starting from zero. If one person doesn't get it, chances are good that other readers won't get it either. Now the reviewer might be an idiot, but it's more likely that your article/argument is not as clear as you think it is. That being said, you should also get to respond to the editor, and if you think that the reviewer is really unreasonable on something, you can say in the letter why you are not listening to their suggestion, as long as you have a good argument. Reviewers are sometimes out to lunch, and may have their own agendas, so as Urodacus says, you don't have to follow slavishly, but if you already know that the editor agrees with the reviewer, then you'd really better listen.

Anyway, good luck with it!

[urodacus]

That just about sums up everything that's wrong about academia and why it's so boring to read academic journals.

Bugger original content; just follow the herd.

I take it you're referring to the arts side of the spectrum with that comment.

you simply cannot get anything published in the sciences that is not 100% totally original. not even a single datum can be a repeat of another paper... but then you knew that.

[Lili]

That just about sums up everything that's wrong about academia and why it's so boring to read academic journals.

Bugger original content; just follow the herd.

I take it you're referring to the arts side of the spectrum with that comment.

you simply cannot get anything published in the sciences that is not 100% totally original. not even a single datum can be a repeat of another paper... but then you knew that.

Yea.
Seems to be the opposite in the social sciences

[anbeck]

Might I ask which Journal it is (or just an insider-hint, if you don't want to mention names)?

[Lili]

Might I ask which Journal it is (or just an insider-hint, if you don't want to mention names)?

Small Wars and Insurgencies

Yea uh this is basically closed, thanks all!

[Impaler]

Seems to be the opposite in the social sciences

Well, that's because the social "sciences" aren't.

[TainanCowboy]

Might I ask which Journal it is (or just an insider-hint, if you don't want to mention names)?

Small Wars and Insurgencies
Yea uh this is basically closed, thanks all!

Send 'em US$50 and get one for barroom challenges....





p.s.- I know you're referring to the Taylor & Francis publication- j/k

[anbeck]

Yea uh this is basically closed, thanks all!

Oh, sorry, hadn't realized that