breaking into top journals in my field

[cointegrated]

Colleagues and editors tell me my work is good enough, but I keep getting desk rejected and being told to submit to lower ranking journals. One editor at a top ranked journal has told me me that "off the record" that being from a low ranking school doesn't make it helpful to publish in his journal. Has any one had similar experiences?

[Parasaurolophus]

I've heard similar things about some supposedly double-anonymous top generalist journals in my field.

All I can suggest is (1) switching to top specialist venues for a while if it's the generalist ones giving you a hard time, (2) keep trying, and moving down the list one at a time while having several items under review at a variety of places, and (3) take the time to craft a solid cover letter.

I think (3) is especially important. You need to find a way to preempt those desk rejections, and a cover letter gives you a chance to explain why the paper is important, flag its peculiarities if it's somewhat unusual, and justify its inclusion in that particular journal. For my weird and off-the-wall papers, the inclusion of such a cover letter has (or seems to have) dramatically improved the quality of my referees, and the editors' willingness to entertain my work.

[Hegemony]

I've done a lot of manuscript reviews for the top journal in my field. What is clear to me is that the submitters haven't run the articles by any senior mentors in their field before sending them out.  Do you have someone like that, or can you cultivate someone like that?  That would help a great deal, I would think, as long as those mentors are rigorous, candid, and kind.

[Ruralguy]

I've had articles rejected by top journals when I was at a top national STEM school associated with a national lab, and had them accepted when I was at my teaching job at a 100 ranked SLAC (and vice-versa). So, though I don't doubt that there is such bias, and have experienced it in other areas, I haven't seen it in publishing, per se, for myself.

However, if someone is telling you that, it means there is something wrong. Perhaps they are mis-attributing it to your institution. So, as Hegemony states, running your articles by others in the field could help.

[mamselle]

Bookmarking.

M.

[pigou]

I don't buy that there's judgment based on school ranking, sorry. But what I've noticed is that the approach to research differs massively at the top schools vs. everywhere outside of the top tier (at least in my field).

As Esther Duflo, the new econ Nobel prize winner said: let your research be guided by the world, not the literature.

Students (and often faculty) outside of top schools pitch research that identifies some gap in the literature, then goes about answering it. That's a good paper and if it's very well done, it can end up in a top field journal. It's not a top journal paper, no matter how well it's done. A top journal paper innovates in (1) the question, (2) the method, or (3) both. It gives us something that's useful beyond the immediate question, or answers a question so fundamental that it deserves universal attention. It answers something that all of us can connect to, even if we didn't know about the topic, but maybe never deeply thought about it -- or never knew how to. (There are, after all, lots of very brilliant people in the same field who are also trying to publish in the same top journals.)

Of course teaching loads and support differ massively, which explains why people at top schools can do that kind of work. At the most competitive universities in my field, you teach one class a year and can blow $50k a year on research using internal funding. Fortune 50 companies knock on your door with data. On the other end, you teach 6 classes a year and get $500 for pilot testing, then deal with reviewers for grants looking for "extending the literature," not novel work. So it's not surprising one group has a better chance to publish in top journals.

What does surprise me, though, is the different willingness to use private funds. I remember in grad school, my adviser spent at least 10% of his salary on our research that we couldn't even get funded internally, because it was too far "out there." Someone I briefly considered working with, dismissed the idea of a $100 expense by referring to what his internal grants would cover. It's not a difference in income, but one in what you're willing to throw at answering the questions you care about - or, alternatively, how much you care about the questions you purport to be interested in.

One of the projects with my adviser failed massively, by the way, and I felt so bad... this was approximately my annual income. And he took me aside and told me that betting on our best shots is what we're supposed to do, because why else do it. And at risk of sounding overly Pollyanna-ish, I think if you take this approach to research, the top journal publications follow.

[cointegrated]

Thank you for the responses.
"Not buying it". I don't know what to say. I have been truthful. I was told by an editor at a top journal in my field that having an institution as low ranking as my own would not look good for his journal. He had nothing but praise for my article and suggested a lower ranking, but still somewhat prestigious journal where it did get published.

[Bede the Vulnerable]

FWIW, since this isn't about journals, but still seems relevant:

While I was at my previous position, I was obsessed with getting my second book project published by a top press:  I wanted to publish out.  So I looked at everything that I could find online about academic book publishing.  Here's the most discouraging statement that I found:

"Not speaking for OUP, but however rare it might be if a topic and/or a manuscript is very good, we would certainly consider it despite the current status of the author. That being said, the reputation, credentials, and name recognition of an author are not insignificant factors in a publishers ability to promote and sell a book, so publication decision do have to factor these things in."

I was then an "underemployed academic, and despaired.  I have since landed a job as an "underworked academic" (R1, 2-2, sabbatical. etc).  I couldn't get a book contract for my ms when I was in my previous position.  Now I have a contract from Ivy U. Press--for the same project.

The Soviets used to say "This is no coincidence."  But maybe it is.  I'll never know. 

[pigou]

Thank you for the responses.
"Not buying it". I don't know what to say. I have been truthful. I was told by an editor at a top journal in my field that having an institution as low ranking as my own would not look good for his journal. He had nothing but praise for my article and suggested a lower ranking, but still somewhat prestigious journal where it did get published.

Sorry, I didn't mean that I don't believe your story, but that this seems like an unlikely explanation that applies broadly. Journals don't benefit from the reputation of the university of the publishing authors. They do benefit from citations, but those aren't tightly related.

This differs from book publishers, who benefit from sales and a famous author is going to sell more books... and a top university has a PR department that helps promote the book.

[Hegemony]

"Not look good for his journal"??  As they used to say in my high school days, what a maroon.  As if anyone is going to peruse the home institutions of the contributors before deciding whether to scan the table of contents of a journal for articles relevant to their field of study.

Once you've made a name for yourself, this will cease to be so important.  I know the question is how to get a foothold.  I'd suggest getting mentors to help you polish your submissions to a high sheen, and then keep submitting, submitting, submitting.  Even if you get maroons like this fellow, you can always remark in your cover letter, "I have been published in [big journal] and [big ole journal], and am currently...", just to give them an idea that you are a star in the ascendant.  (I mean, once you have been published.  Obviously don't fake any credentials.)

Also remember that once you get past the editor, you are anonymous to the reviewers, so they will not be judging by such ridiculous criteria.

[Parasaurolophus]

"Not look good for his journal"??  As they used to say in my high school days, what a maroon.  As if anyone is going to peruse the home institutions of the contributors before deciding whether to scan the table of contents of a journal for articles relevant to their field of study.

You say that, but... quite a few people in my field have explicitly said just this. Far fewer than will say they only read articles in Top Journals 1, 2, and 3, but still more than zero. 0_o

One day, those old men will die. Then things will be less bad. Maybe.

[Ruralguy]

I  just check journals by topic and sometimes read out of my field if something just looks like its interesting (think "Life on Other Planets" or some other big breakthrough). I only notice later that underneath an author name it says "Super-Dinky College, Dinkyville, Big Square State, USA." Occasionally I am amused that they managed to get such great work out in Dinkyville, and I can't say I ever thought "I am not going to read that crud. I only read papers from Harvard and Caltech. "

[quasihumanist]

I think there is a possibility the editor has a point.

I know what the top journals are and where they stand relative to each other.  When it comes to second and third tier journals, I do sometimes decide where to submit based on looking at what has been recently published in the journal, and by whom.  I've heard of enough people that I don't think I've ever looked at an affiliation, but I could imagine someone who knows fewer people (for example someone in a developing country) trying to figure out the relative reputations of two second-tier journals (for the purpose of deciding where to submit a good but not top-tier paper) by the affiliations of the authors.

[AvidReader]

This has not been my experience in the humanities, but that sounds awful--that seems like a peer review fail. Would it be better or worse to submit as an independent scholar?

AR.

[AJ_Katz]

I've done a lot of manuscript reviews for the top journal in my field. What is clear to me is that the submitters haven't run the articles by any senior mentors in their field before sending them out.  Do you have someone like that, or can you cultivate someone like that?  That would help a great deal, I would think, as long as those mentors are rigorous, candid, and kind.

That was my thought too, to select someone who has published frequently and recently in that journal and ask them to do a pre-submission review.  After making changes, indicate in your cover letter when you submit the article that the manuscript was already reviewed by that person and even include any nice quotes from them about the article.  Having a familiar name escort your manuscript would not hurt.