So here\’s a question

I\’ve got a paper in Economic Affairs this month.

It\’s a journal, a Journal even, so does this mean I\’ve published a \”paper\” in the accepted sense?

How does this work?

Or is something in a Journal a journal article?

I\’m pretty sure there wasn\’t \”peer review\”, at least I didn\’t get anything back from any reviewer saying \”please sort this out dimwit\” so I assume that it\’s not a \”paper\” in hte sense of \”have you published a paper?\”

10 thoughts on “So here\’s a question”

  1. It’s a journal article, but not a peer reviewed journal article. You can use it in a portfolio, but not as a credential.

  2. Which section’s it in Tim?

    Tim adds: Dunno…..I don’t actually get the journal in question….

  3. It says: “There are three sections for submitted articles: the Symposium section, which tackles a specific theme in each issue and for which articles are commissioned and peer reviewed; the Other Articles section to which authors can submit their work and for which articles are double blind refereed and the Economic Viewpoints section, containing shorter articles, usually of a topical nature, which are reviewed by the editors.”

    http://www.wiley.com/bw/submit.asp?ref=0265-0665&site=1

    Now do you know which section it is in?

    Tim adds: Umm, at the head of my .pdf it says “Other Articles” so I assume the middle section.

  4. I think you can put it on your CV. Does it contain any original research findings, or an analysis of others’ research findings?

    Odd if you got no referees’ comments.

  5. I stand corrected, it does look like a peer reviewed paper. Congratulations, you’re published!

    That journal has an impact factor of 0.051, which may explain the lack of reviewer comments. When you review for a high impact journal there’s quite a bit of self-pressure to find something to correct, so even a perfect paper will be nitpicked to death. If there was something wrong with yours you would have got comments, but I doubt the pointless finicky ones that drove me insane would show up.

    I found a reasonably heavily cited paper from that journal which sounds like your kind of thing, too:

    Minford, P. (1984), State Expenditure: A Study in Waste.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0270.1984.tb01608.x/full

  6. Towards the end of my refereeing days, I was more and more tempted to recommend acceptance of any paper that didn’t call for more effing research.

  7. The ‘Other Articles’ section of EA is definitely refereed – I know because I’ve been the referee (although I wasn’t on Tim’s).

    But being a sensible journal, they don’t encourage comments just for the sake of it, so if it was acceptable you wouldn’t necessarily have seen anything back on it.

    It’s also a ‘serious’ journal; as well as peer-review & refereeing it’s got an Academic Advisory Board and it appears in the various journal rankings (not very high up, but it’s there).

    For example, here’s a commonly used Australian ranking of business & economics journals; EA is in there:
    http://lamp.infosys.deakin.edu.au/era/?page=fordet10&selfor=14

    If you had a university post, that could go on your department’s Research Assessment submission to HEFCE (although you’d need a couple more first; I think the minimum’s 3).

    So yes, you’ve published an academic paper.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *