Publishing in General Sociology Journals

As the flagship journal of the Eastern Sociological Society (ESS), we had the opportunity to sponsor a session at the 2025 ESS Annual Meeting. We elected to focus the session on publishing in general journals of the discipline such as Sociological Forum. We invited the editors of some of our field's top generalist journals as panelists: Andrew Fullerton (A.F.) from Social Problems, Amin Ghaziani (A.G.) from Contexts, and Laurel Smith-Doerr (L.S.-D.) from American Sociological Review. The session utilized a Q&A format: Panelists responded to publishing questions we elicited from our readers beforehand as well as to inquiries that arose organically during the session. The conversation was fruitful, informative, and productive, so we share it here on The Forum. We hope our readers find it helpful in their publishing endeavors. 1. What do you see as the major challenges to publishing in academic journals today? A.G.: Authors have to navigate a variety of challenges as they publish their workin academic journals. There is often uncertainty about which journal to select, for starters, along with rank-ordering your other options in case the first falls through. All of us, from graduate students to full professors and deans, confront the realities of rejection. Speaking of students: I think they receive uneven training in professional development. Some programs socialize graduate students on the art of academic publishing, introducing them from their earliest days to how to craft a letter to the editor that would accompany a submission, or how to write an effective response memo that details, point by point, your revisions. Thinking about manuscript submissions brings to mind the ever-evolving publishing landscape. There are now many more options. This is a source of both freedom and fear. With expanding access comes some confusion about general versus subfield-specific outlets, which has implications for admissions into graduate programs, establishing a scholarly reputation, job searches, and eventually, tenure. Finally, there are longer review times. This is something we struggle with at Contexts, as I am certain do all other journal editors. Longer review times are a function of reviewer fatigue, which makes it harder for us to secure feedback in a timely fashion. Yet time is a precious resource! L.S.-D.: I agree with Amin on all of these points. I would add that open-access fees appear to keep increasing, which means authoring a journal publication that can be read by anyone may be limited to those who can afford to pay the fees. I think librarians are important allies in the pushback against open-access fees, at the collective level. A.F.: Amin and Laurel bring up several important challenges that authors face in today's publishing landscape. Longer review times are particularly frustrating for authors facing pressure to publish their work in preparation for job searches and promotions. Reducing review times needs to be a collective goal shared by editors, authors, and reviewers. Authors can facilitate this process by carefully choosing the outlet for their work, tailoring their cover letter to the journal (including suggested reviewers when appropriate), and creating detailed response memos for revised submissions that outline their responses to the reviewers' concerns. The review process would obviously not be possible without the generosity and expertise of the reviewers. It is understandable that reviewers will not be able to review every paper within the standard four-week timeframe given the increasing number of demands on their time. Proactive editors can assess situations involving delays and find ways of securing additional reviews when necessary (e.g., with the assistance of an editorial board member) in order to meet the goal of a timely review process. A.G.: Hearing Andrew's emphasis on reviewers reminds me to raise a quick though crucial point: We are all both authors and reviewers. While the focus of this forum is on the publishing side, I hope listeners and readers receive our comments about longer review times as a plea to serve as conscientious reviewers. 2. When should authors submit to a general sociology journal compared to a more specific topical journal? What do you see as unique about your journal compared with other general sociology journals that potential authors should keep in mind? L.S.-D.: At the American Sociological Review (ASR), papers employing all sociological methods and from all subfields are welcome for submission. The ASR editorial team's best advice to you, if you would like to see more papers in your area published in the flagship ASA journal, is two-part: (1) submit your best papers in the area you want to see represented, and (2) this is very important: agree to review papers in the area you want to see represented in ASR when you are invited to review. It is true that with the number of submissions we receive, publishing in ASR is a low-probability event, but the only way an area of sociology can be published in ASR is if we receive submissions and reviews in that area. A.G.: Contexts is unique in the ecology of ASA journals. As a quarterly magazine, it is the most prominent venue for sociological research written without jargon and thus with an intent to reach broader publics. Our longest articles, which are peer-reviewed features, are capped at 3000 words. They are cleanly and clearly penned for audiences beyond academic sociologists. No footnotes and no formal citations create a distinct style of writing and reading that differentiates articles in Contexts from those in ASR, Social Problems, or Sociological Forum. We often describe our essays as resembling the best of long-form journalism: empirically rich, informed by theory, but driven fundamentally by narratives. Think The New Yorker, for example. What we share in common is a commitment to teaching the reader something new by packaging it in the format of stories and storytelling. In this way, Contexts supports nontraditional yet highly creative content in multiple formats, from features, as I mentioned, to photo essays, culture reviews, trends, and policy perspectives. A.F.: At Social Problems, we also consider papers from every subfield utilizing a wide variety of methods. What obviously distinguishes our journal from other generalist journals is that the papers should be framed in terms of one or more social problems. We include a list of 22 topics covered on the journal website (https://academic.oup.com/socpro/pages/About). Additionally, it is also important to highlight the theoretical contributions and policy implications of one's study because they broaden the appeal of the paper to a larger audience. L.S.-D.: In having this conversation, it occurs to me that while we all edit ‘general’ sociology journals, our responses show that one size does not fit all. It means checking with a journal's author submission guidelines is key. And it may seem obvious, but don't forget that reading recent issues of the journal you are targeting is important to do before submitting. A.F.: Laurel brings up a good point. It is important to emphasize that this goes beyond simply including one or two references to works published in the journal. Reading recent issues will give you a better sense of the journal's contributions to ongoing debates in the literature and how you might be able to connect the findings from your study to those broader discussions. 3. What advice do you have for authors thinking of submitting to a general sociology journal? L.S.-D.: My fellow ASR editors and I wrote a little about this question in our “Editor's Note” (Cort et al. 2024), so I'll quote that here: “ASR papers tend to combine very strong research designs and analytic methods, general interest framing, and theory development that transcends subfields. As editors, when we are evaluating whether or not to send a paper out for review, we have these three criteria in mind—quality of methods, general appeal, and breadth.” I'll add that one common mistake we see is authors overlooking the importance of the title and the abstract—those two items help a reviewer decide whether to accept the invitation to review or not. The title and the abstract need to be clear, inviting, and demonstrate the quality and breadth of the paper. A.G.: Pitch us! All feature essays start as what we call a “pitch.” That includes a 50-word summary of your main argument—the big story, your data, and key takeaways. We also require you to submit a lede, or the first couple of stylish paragraphs meant to hook your reader. Here is where you people your story rather than foreground concepts or theoretical debates, as you might in a traditional academic article. The editorial team meets regularly to review in-house the pitches we receive. If we like it, we will send you what we call a “greenlight” memo, which is an invitation to submit a full manuscript. In our memo, we provide developmental guidance, making recommendations for what we think will make your piece stand out relative to our four Rs: writing that is rigorous, relevant, readable, and rad. Once you submit your full essay, we send it out for review, at which point the process resembles other journals, where we, based on the reviews we receive, determine whether to reject, accept, or ask for revisions. Once we're in the production stage, uniqueness kicks back into play. The design and layout of our articles includes a selection of striking photographs and images. The final result is an essay that is as compelling for its narrative qualities as for its visual elegance. Check out our author guidelines at contexts.org to learn more about the process, and pull up a recent copy of the magazine to appreciate the beauty of our articles. A.F.: Although we welcome purely theoretical or methodological papers at Social Problems, most of our submissions are theoretically grounded empirical papers. As a result, we consider the theoretical and empirical contributions of a paper when deciding whether or not to send it out for review. One mistake some authors make is failing to emphasize the contributions of their paper to both areas or assuming that they can compensate for a major inadequacy in one area (e.g., the lack of a theoretical framework) by making contributions in another area (e.g., the robustness of the data or novelty of the method). 4. Is there a standard turnaround time from submission to review to eventual publication? L.S.-D.: The ASA publishes annual reports from each of the association's journals on its website, so you can look up what the average time to review decisions is in those reports. In general, we aim to return first ASR decisions in about 3 months, but as we discussed earlier, journals depend on reviewer timelines—and those vary widely. A.F.: We also aim to reach a decision on first-round submissions within 3 months. It can take as long as 4 months in some cases due to delays in the review process, but we are also able to provide reviews in 7–9 weeks for many of our authors. A.G.: Our authors have 30 days to convert a greenlit pitch to a full feature essay. That should give you a sense of our timeline. Compared to other journals, things move much more quickly at Contexts. While we certainly encounter challenges with securing reviewers, once we do, those reviews also come back in a jiff. Remember that features are only 3000 words, and they are written as sociologically informed stories. The style of our submissions lends itself to a faster review process, and thus also a faster production and publication process. A.F.: Our responses to this question highlight the variability in turnaround times between and within journals over time. This is important for graduate students and junior faculty on the tenure track to keep in mind as they make decisions regarding outlets for their research. 5. How heavily should authors weigh a journal's ranking on academic metrics when submitting their work? A.G.: On this matter, I encourage us to internalize what we teach our students about triangulation. Journal rankings are an important metric for influence and reach—but they are one among a number of other metrics that we should also consider in order to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the situation, including impact factors, h-index, circulation numbers, if the journal is indexed in major bibliographic databases, the extent to which the journal publishes in interdisciplinary knowledge circuits, and, especially relevant for me to say given my co-editorship of Contexts, evidence about the public reach of the work. That last point is partly captured in alternative metrics (or “altmetrics”) that measure the impact of research beyond traditional citation counts in things like social media mentions, blog posts, other online engagements, and news coverage. I urge caution against overemphasizing any one of these items for the simple fact that there are always multiple considerations at play. L.S.-D.: I agree with Amin on this point. I would just add that authors should be working with a community of colleagues who can both review their paper and advise them on the local publishing culture of the department or job market targets they have in mind. My advice is to ask multiple mentors about journals to consider for submission. One question a mentor might ask you is: What journals are you citing in the paper you want to submit? I think asking yourself about the conversations that you want your paper to be part of is the most relevant question in selecting a journal. A.G.: Your comment, Laurel, about working with a community of colleagues is so important. Too often, the academy is construed, and sadly also experienced, as a solitary enterprise—but it doesn't have to be that way. Cultivating a community of care and inspiration is a vital part of navigating the profession. A.F.: I agree with Laurel and Amin regarding the importance of your community of colleagues. Finding the right fit for your paper is key, and seeking the input of other members of your community is a great way to evaluate different outlets for your work. Laurel's point about the journals you cite in the paper is also something to consider when selecting a journal. Submitting your paper to a journal based on metrics alone will not guarantee that it is a good fit. 6. What types of publication outlets, other than academic journals, do you think will become more vital in the future for success as a sociologist? A.G.: This question reminds me of a piece penned by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times. Entitled “Professors, We Need You!,” the essay incited an impassioned conversation about the relationship between the academy and the public. “Some of the smartest thinkers on problems at home and around the world are university professors,” Kristoff observes, “but most of them just don't matter in today's greatest debates. The most stinging dismissal of a point is to say: ‘That's academic’” (Kristof 2014). Subsequent to Kristof publishing his essay, a number of scholars have chimed in too, writing pieces with provocative titles like “How Sociologists Made Themselves Irrelevant” (Orlando Patterson), “Sociology's Irrelevance in the News” (Syed Ali), “Isolated Scholars: Making Bricks, Not Shaping Policy” (Andrew J. Hoffman), “What If Sociologists Had as Much Influence as Economists?” (Neil Irwin), “Hey, Sociologists! Speak Up!” (Justin Fox), and my own recently published interview in Contexts with Kristof 10 years after his original essay came out (“Professors, We [Still] Need You!”). All these headlines express the same intuition: We must diversify our publication outlets and our targeted audiences. There can never be a one-size approach to our research. And so yes, it will become—in fact already is—vital for successful sociologists to strategize about how we can connect with multiple audiences. In addition to interviewing Kristof, I also had the opportunity to speak with who is the editor of Contexts. something that with that sociologists have a to share our knowledge with the especially in ways that would and public those be your L.S.-D.: I response At my we have training and for work by faculty and graduate which includes one's work for public audiences in outlets like The or for us in has a that works with like the for training in writing as well as on how to with and should public In these times more than we need to be able to the of our research to broader audiences. A.G.: It like the training your department can serve as a for other we our students or junior faculty to write for the public without teaching and for how to do I am also to see your references to publication outlets like The and like take A.F.: Amin and Laurel highlight the sociologists have to make their work I agree with Amin that the training and Laurel's department for work would make a great for other sociology This is an of professional that is by teaching and academic publishing yet for sociology to be able to make a impact on the social world we How much should into a paper that I am for after an L.S.-D.: The of should be as much as don't be to including the to the decision letter and what they say about the most important areas for revisions. Speaking if the editors are asking you to an of the don't just you at the The response memo is very important. you each from the editors and if you are a comment, you are not making that Some good advice I as an author was to the reviews and your revised paper by colleagues to their input on whether the before to the journal. A.G.: Laurel's advice is on point. I would say that it to take a back from the that come from reading reviews and what the process or more scholars who are in your have the time to read your work, on it, and provide for how to With this in like to on the question of how much should into a paper that was if this is your at one I think to the without any to the journal. you might two there is a good that one of the reviewers will be invited to read your submission once you send it to the If that that you take into any of their advice from it may the of another rejection. way to in of is to your paper in of the reviews from one journal before you send it to the In this I think that a us a little more freedom than an don't have to all the issues by all the especially if you with one or more of the do you have to your decision against some of the In these I make a to see the review process and It is an opportunity to learn from readers in at some of their had my best and the best interest of my in mind. A.F.: I agree that a detailed memo to every reviewer is When authors do not reviewers' (or them it the of a review in the I am not that authors need to accept every and them into the revised paper. that is not possible because reviewers In those authors should the advice of the editorial team if they are regarding the best way to If it is simply not possible to make a suggested or it is not a that the author is necessary or to an of this decision in the memo is all that is all of the comments on a makes it for the reviewers to see that you have their and thus your of the paper L.S.-D.: I think a common I am in our advice on this point is that writing is Authors can into when we are to our especially those of us who are not or What for (including social is very clearly about the knowledge we The authors no of

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.