DO NOT SIT ON R&Rs.
I know, they're painful and scary and sometimes we don't know if our paper will get rejected in the end.
But remember, an R&R means an OPPORTUNITY to get your paper published.
THREAD: On the full-fledged process of responding to a Revise-And-Resubmit (R&R).
I have written pieces of the process, but I hadn't actually written a thread or a blog post showcasing how all my blog posts fit with one another. I teach this process when I give workshops.
DO NOT SIT ON R&Rs.
I know, they're painful and scary and sometimes we don't know if our paper will get rejected in the end.
But remember, an R&R means an OPPORTUNITY to get your paper published.
HOWEVER...
The goal is the R&R.
You're not getting a desk rejection.
You are getting your work read, reviewed carefully, thought about, responded to.
When I get the R&R (the "decision letter"), I make sure to calm down, because I am always afraid I'm going to get nasty comments. These have been (luckily) very rarely present in my latest submissions.
(I ask my Mom)
Once I read the Editor's Decision Letter, which include the comments, I pay a lot of attention to what the editor is telling me in the letter. Which reviewers' comments do they recommend I pay particular attention to?
Editors have been incredible generous to me.
As you can see in this tweet, I do both digital and paper versions. I need to be able to SEE how the changes fit with one another, holistically. https://t.co/pMvc95K99z
Some people have sent my DRM directly to editors. I know this.
You probably are thinking "but how I do I plan the R&R"
(in re-reading my post on the Response to Editors and Reviewers Letter, I realized I did have a thread that links everything together. But now it will work as a post)
https://t.co/9O6tG2AHP7
Doing this helps me chart my activities moving forward.
Hope this articulation of my blog posts and my processes are helpful to those of you in the throes of R&R revisions!
This Twitter thread in handy blog post form so you can reshare with the social buttons, email or copy-and-paste.
More from For later read
The common understanding of propaganda is that it is intended to brainwash the masses. Supposedly, people get exposed to the same message repeatedly and over time come to believe in whatever nonsense authoritarians want them to believe /1
And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.
Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2
When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.
The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3
In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it
Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.
The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.
Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2
"propaganda is often not used for indoctrination, but rather to signal the government\u2019s strength in being able to afford significant resources and impose on its citizens...not meant to 'brainwash', but rather to forewarn the society about how strong it is" https://t.co/mFAurhEHeO pic.twitter.com/WXKKJaPqWQ
— Rob Henderson (@robkhenderson) June 18, 2020
When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.
The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3
In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it
Authoritarians do not use propaganda for brainwashing, "but to demonstrate their strength in social control...propaganda may need to be dull and unpersuasive, to make sure citizens know it is propaganda when they see it and hence get the implicit message" https://t.co/PqRpxjaIPL pic.twitter.com/1y67d2RCjB
— Rob Henderson (@robkhenderson) June 19, 2020
Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.
The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.
like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.
the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more
the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500
adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"
\U0001f91e ONLINE RAFFLE is available from @bodega for the upcoming "UNLV" Nike Dunk Low Retro. Open until 5 PM ET on 2/16.
— Kicks Deals (@KicksDeals) February 15, 2021
\u27a1\ufe0f\u27a1\ufe0f https://t.co/JxJlyPuJVo pic.twitter.com/zenWOCDg4L
like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.
the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more
the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500
adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
BREAKING: @CommonsCMS @DamianCollins just released previously sealed #Six4Three @Facebook documents:
Some random interesting tidbits:
1) Zuck approves shutting down platform API access for Twitter's when Vine is released #competition
2) Facebook engineered ways to access user's call history w/o alerting users:
Team considered access to call history considered 'high PR risk' but 'growth team will charge ahead'. @Facebook created upgrade path to access data w/o subjecting users to Android permissions dialogue.
3) The above also confirms @kashhill and other's suspicion that call history was used to improve PYMK (People You May Know) suggestions and newsfeed rankings.
4) Docs also shed more light into @dseetharaman's story on @Facebook monitoring users' @Onavo VPN activity to determine what competitors to mimic or acquire in 2013.
https://t.co/PwiRIL3v9x
Some random interesting tidbits:
1) Zuck approves shutting down platform API access for Twitter's when Vine is released #competition
2) Facebook engineered ways to access user's call history w/o alerting users:
Team considered access to call history considered 'high PR risk' but 'growth team will charge ahead'. @Facebook created upgrade path to access data w/o subjecting users to Android permissions dialogue.
3) The above also confirms @kashhill and other's suspicion that call history was used to improve PYMK (People You May Know) suggestions and newsfeed rankings.
4) Docs also shed more light into @dseetharaman's story on @Facebook monitoring users' @Onavo VPN activity to determine what competitors to mimic or acquire in 2013.
https://t.co/PwiRIL3v9x
