{"id":12383,"date":"2024-03-14T19:30:05","date_gmt":"2024-03-15T02:30:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=12383"},"modified":"2024-03-14T19:52:13","modified_gmt":"2024-03-15T02:52:13","slug":"three-more-transoms-and-a-note-tost-over-a-fourth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=12383","title":{"rendered":"Two More Transoms, and a Note Tost over Another"},"content":{"rendered":"

The journal to which, on 21 February, I submitted my paper on Sraffa<\/a> rejected it<\/a> with the familiar suggestion that I submit it<\/a> to a journal on the history of thought. An administrator at the next journal to which I submitted it<\/a> — with a cover letter that, amongst other things, explained why<\/em> the article<\/a> did not belong in a journal of history of thought — asked that I shorten it<\/a> by about 25%, and insisted that my cover letter, which had been written specifically for that journal, needed to be explicitly addressed<\/em> to the editors. I deleted the submission altogether.<\/p>

On 24 February, I submitted to another journal, again with a cover letter explaining why the article<\/a> did not belong in a journal of history of thought. Although the submission form did not require that I specify an institutional affiliation, an administrator contacted me requiring that I provide one. I entered [NONE]<\/q>; evidently that response was sufficient. For something like ten or eleven days though, the reported status of the paper<\/a> was that it<\/a> were undergoing an initial check. Then, for a few days, the reported status was Pending Editor Assignment<\/q>. When I checked this morning, the status was Under Review<\/q>.<\/p>

I'd say that the greatest danger to the paper<\/a> is that it<\/a> will be regarded as too long for the journal in question. If their declared ceiling is firm, then indeed the paper<\/a> is too long; but I know of at least one academic journal that baldly states a ceiling, only later to provide an opportunity to appeal on behalf of a paper that exceeds that ceiling.<\/p>

The next journal in my queue explicitly does not set a maximum length for papers.<\/p>

By the way, the journal from which I yanked my paper on 21 February<\/a> still has the thing<\/a> listed in their submission system, with seemingly frozen status.<\/p>

Some time ago, I had the idea for a very short academic paper — called a note<\/q> — on a potential pitfall in translating from generalized probability to modal logic. After I banged-out a draft of the note, I asked one friend if he thought the point too trivial to bother seeking publication; when he got back to me on Tuesday, he said that he didn't think the point too trivial. Another friend had suggested that I let the editors and referees decide that question. Meanwhile, I had thought that I ought to restructure the presentation a bit. I effected a restructuring early this morning, before going to sleep, and then submitted the note in the after-noon.<\/p> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The journal to which, on 21 February, I submitted my paper on Sraffa rejected it with the familiar suggestion that I submit it to a journal on the history of thought. An administrator at the next journal to which I submitted it — with a cover letter that, amongst other things, explained why the article […]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[117,5,4],"tags":[1687,445,1316,413,1228,1318,446],"class_list":["post-12383","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-communication","category-personal","category-public","tag-modal-logic","tag-papers","tag-piero-sraffa","tag-probability","tag-qualitative-probability","tag-sraffa","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12383","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12383"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12383\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12399,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12383\/revisions\/12399"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}