Brad Delong calls this “hoisted from the archives,” which is clearly a better term for what I’m doing. But, as that’s taken and I’m not as smart as the great economics professor, I guess I’ll just have to stick with this alternative.
Peer reviewing: a call to arms (updated)
From: 22 April 2009
I just turned down a request that I review for a journal because, in part, they failed to send me an anonymized copy of the decision letter the last time I reviewed for them. And this despite the journal using an electronic review system that automates the process.
I can think of a number of reasons why all peer-reviewed journals should be required to supply reviewers with copies of their decision letters. In no particular order:
(1) It provides closure to the reviewer.
If I invested–at minimum–a few days in carefully reading an article and writing a review of anywhere from two to six pages, it seems like basic courtesy to let me know what the editors decided to do with the manuscript.
This constitutes our promised post containing the “final list” of OAIS Award Nominees. This is also your last chance to let us know if we’ve left off an eligible nomination.
We will send out a ballot soon. The current plan is to use a Borda-count process to create a list of finalists and to proceed to a second round to determine the winners in each category. We welcome feedback on that procedure.
A reminder: we will announce winners at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association (ISA). The award ceremony will take place during the first-ever International Studies Blogging reception–which will take place on Thursday April 4th from 7.30-8.30pm. The reception, which is sponsored by SAGE, will feature 4-5 minute “spoken blogpost” presentations. The current lineup includes Erica Chenoweth, Dan Drezner, Rob Farley, Marc Lynch, and Steve Walt. We hope that ISA participants will join us, and note that the OAIS awards are in no way, shape, or form affiliated with the ISA.