Overworked uncompensated reviewers and editors. I know it has unappealing equity implications, but charging authors to submit would make the cost of slop higher. Costs go up, supply go down. Paid reviews increase the supply and timeliness of reviewers. We subsidize fees from disadvantaged groups. Markets are unpopular these days, but they are powerful allocation machines.
I've been pushing non-linear costs. First submission is 0, second is X, third is X^2... The third paper you submit had better be really, really good to justify, say, a $1000 submission fee.
But I also think the deeper issue isn't just with the journals. Universities and the professions also have a major role. I've heard about schools paying 20k, 30k per "A," and sometimes paying co-authors at top US universities a bonus too.
Interesting. Today, wondering what would happen if the number of submissions per author were public information? I would think that could impose costs on the spammers? I would think a tenure profile with 10,000 submissions would look different from the anemic numbers I post up, for instance... That could have benefits, too, in terms of getting people who should take more shots on goal to actually do so...
The mirror framing concedes too much to AI. The old incentives rewarded volume, but gaming them still required a costly act — writing the words yourself. That cost was the minimal institutional proof that someone was present. AI removes the cost. The incentive stays.
Amen; I also refuse to be a new reviewer on R&Rs. So is the Sociological Science -- who does 90% of reviews in-house w. a slate of editors -- the model? Not sure that scales either, though I could make a case for it. I think to your main point in the piece, it's the incentive structure for tenure and hire that drives the volume. Some places now restrict P&T to "top 10" publications, I think with an eye toward emphasizing quality over quantity, but I'm not convinced that works (a pre-tenure person has to submit 30 to get 10). I think sheer volume is going to push journals to use AI for pre-screens, which is an obvious arms race to the bottom.
Thanks for sharing this. I'm seeing it in the health literature as well ... i've desk rejected a half dozen papered from one journal this year all using a very narrow network-esque technique in a clear plug-and-play setup.
The other mirror, tho, is pushing too hard on reviews as rewriting. AJS still insists on new reviewers for r&r, i'm watching one now where the sample and analysis needed for meeting third round has no substantive overlap with round 1. And i've seen multiple cases (of author and reviewer) where we drag authors through the mill for years only to reject a sound, if not perfect, paper. Given our recently reported replication relates (50% range), this suggests all that time and pain is not working.
I expect these feed on each other, that authors feel pressure knowing they need to get past unreasonable reviews, so flood the system hoping for random chance to play their way.
Thanks, Jim. The issue of unreasonable, long-drawn-out review processes is a legit problem. I've experienced it myself, and it definitely affected my career trajectory. But now I haven't submitted to or reviewed for these journals (I won't name them) that have treated authors this way for years. 5 rounds and then a rejection is a failure of the process. People's careers and their families' lives are literally on the line.
As an editor, I try to get a decision made in 2 rounds at most. But last year I handled over 260 manuscripts (I'm not the only one). It's impossible to manage a workload like this for any extended period without wondering whether the system needs real reform.
Overworked uncompensated reviewers and editors. I know it has unappealing equity implications, but charging authors to submit would make the cost of slop higher. Costs go up, supply go down. Paid reviews increase the supply and timeliness of reviewers. We subsidize fees from disadvantaged groups. Markets are unpopular these days, but they are powerful allocation machines.
I've been pushing non-linear costs. First submission is 0, second is X, third is X^2... The third paper you submit had better be really, really good to justify, say, a $1000 submission fee.
But I also think the deeper issue isn't just with the journals. Universities and the professions also have a major role. I've heard about schools paying 20k, 30k per "A," and sometimes paying co-authors at top US universities a bonus too.
Interesting. Today, wondering what would happen if the number of submissions per author were public information? I would think that could impose costs on the spammers? I would think a tenure profile with 10,000 submissions would look different from the anemic numbers I post up, for instance... That could have benefits, too, in terms of getting people who should take more shots on goal to actually do so...
The mirror framing concedes too much to AI. The old incentives rewarded volume, but gaming them still required a costly act — writing the words yourself. That cost was the minimal institutional proof that someone was present. AI removes the cost. The incentive stays.
I couldn't get the link in the OP to work (took me to an error), here is another link:
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3
It is really an outstanding piece. Very well done.
Thanks! Fixed the link!
Amen; I also refuse to be a new reviewer on R&Rs. So is the Sociological Science -- who does 90% of reviews in-house w. a slate of editors -- the model? Not sure that scales either, though I could make a case for it. I think to your main point in the piece, it's the incentive structure for tenure and hire that drives the volume. Some places now restrict P&T to "top 10" publications, I think with an eye toward emphasizing quality over quantity, but I'm not convinced that works (a pre-tenure person has to submit 30 to get 10). I think sheer volume is going to push journals to use AI for pre-screens, which is an obvious arms race to the bottom.
Totally! Once we start doing AI screening, the system devolves into us trying to get through the spam filters. Not obvious that this is going to work.
Thanks for sharing this. I'm seeing it in the health literature as well ... i've desk rejected a half dozen papered from one journal this year all using a very narrow network-esque technique in a clear plug-and-play setup.
The other mirror, tho, is pushing too hard on reviews as rewriting. AJS still insists on new reviewers for r&r, i'm watching one now where the sample and analysis needed for meeting third round has no substantive overlap with round 1. And i've seen multiple cases (of author and reviewer) where we drag authors through the mill for years only to reject a sound, if not perfect, paper. Given our recently reported replication relates (50% range), this suggests all that time and pain is not working.
I expect these feed on each other, that authors feel pressure knowing they need to get past unreasonable reviews, so flood the system hoping for random chance to play their way.
Thanks, Jim. The issue of unreasonable, long-drawn-out review processes is a legit problem. I've experienced it myself, and it definitely affected my career trajectory. But now I haven't submitted to or reviewed for these journals (I won't name them) that have treated authors this way for years. 5 rounds and then a rejection is a failure of the process. People's careers and their families' lives are literally on the line.
As an editor, I try to get a decision made in 2 rounds at most. But last year I handled over 260 manuscripts (I'm not the only one). It's impossible to manage a workload like this for any extended period without wondering whether the system needs real reform.