- Prioritizing is good. Prioritizing is absolutely necessary in this job. But what do you do if you have time this month to do X projects, but X+1 projects are "high priority"? Is cloning legal yet?
- Number of high priority projects = X+1 because a journal article I sent out for review before its time, which I thought would be a sure reject, just came back as a strong revise&resubmit. So that clearly needs to be fast-tracked. So yes, at least my plate is full for a totally awesome reason.
- This is the first set of journal reviews that I've gotten back where there were no insulting/mean-spirited reviews in the bunch. This means (please choose 1): (a) my writing is getting much, much better and clearer; (b) people in this field are getting nicer; (c) there are no psychopaths that review for this particular journal; (d) nothing at all, just a very lucky draw.
- Jane's Law of Journal Reviews: There is always at least one reviewer that completely misses the point of the paper. (Seriously, I'm curious...does this extend to other fields, too?)
- Teaching. I haven't said much about it lately. It's going.....very well, actually. I am really enjoying this particular group of students. I'm much more comfortable in my pedagogy. Students are really learning the material, and are even willing to put in the work to get the hard stuff (and are getting it! even the really hard stuff that has given students nightmares in the past. one of my colleagues observed my class recently on a really tough conceptual day, and he was amazed at what I was able to get these students to do). This is A Good Thing to happen the year before going up for tenure. Fingers crossed that this good fortune continues...
- Well, ok, teaching is mostly going well.
- When the heck am I supposed to do my holiday shopping? Seriously, when?
- I had the most bizarre conversation with Mr. Jane the other day. (No, this one is not about blog dreams.) We were trying to figure out what kinds of Christmas cookies we
willintend to make this year. I suggested these really easy but yummy cookies that use pre-made sugar cookie dough and have mini candy bars inside (I'm sure there's a name for these, but it escapes me right now). Mr. Jane claimed that eating those cookies "made him feel guilty". Why? Because they contain candy. Now, this is the same man who will scarf down an entire plate of cookies without blinking and definitely without a second thought. I had no idea that sugar has a guilt continuum. - The standoff with the collaborators continues. Sigh.
See Jane Compute
The adventures of a woman in computing.
Profile
Jane is an assistant professor in a computing field, and a new mother. Join her as she navigates the tenure track, deals with gender issues, figures out how to be a parent, and tries to have some semblance of a life.
Search
Recent Posts
- So long, and thanks for all the fish
- Flipping out over tenure
- "Priorities" and "Procrastination" both start with the same letter
- Things that are currently making me feel old
- The day I learned to stand up for myself, professionally
- Ada Lovelace Day post: Justine Cassell
- Reminder: Ada Lovelace Day tomorrow!
- Tales from the latest exam
- Oh, wait, that's right, I have a BLOG
- Student group dynamics
Recent Comments
- AJ on The day I learned to stand up for myself, professionally
- Yale S.Y. Landsberg on An open letter to my circadian rhythm and my brain
- wannabephd on So long, and thanks for all the fish
- Candid Engineer on So long, and thanks for all the fish
- msphd on So long, and thanks for all the fish
- Jason Ernst on So long, and thanks for all the fish
- Skracacz linków on So long, and thanks for all the fish
- John Dupuis on So long, and thanks for all the fish
- Konsole on Flipping out over tenure
- ecogeofemme on So long, and thanks for all the fish
Archives
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
Blogroll
Other Information
Blogging about teaching: the miniseries
Introduction
The intro courses
The intro courses, part 2
The mid-tier courses
The upper-level courses
« The end of an era, of sorts | Main | I'm so boring lately....but at least I'm being productive! »
Random bullets of Aaaaarrrrgh! December!!
Category: research • teaching • tenure • work-life balance
Posted on: December 3, 2008 11:19 PM, by Jane
Find more posts in: 
Education & Careers
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/87116
Comments
"This is the first set of journal reviews that I've gotten back where there were no insulting/mean-spirited reviews in the bunch. This means (please choose 1): (a) my writing is getting much, much better and clearer; (b) people in this field are getting nicer; (c) there are no psychopaths that review for this particular journal; (d) nothing at all, just a very lucky draw."
Actually, I've come to realize that in specific subfields, the number of people willing and able to review just isn't that high. You tend to get your reviewers picked from the same relatively small pool every time, and especially so if you tend to send to the same conferences and journals originating in the same area of the world.
So you may have only a couple of people that are consistently unpleasant, but they tend to get picked again and again whenever a paper about your subject appear for review in one of your normal conferences or papers. Try submitting somewere a bit different - a European or Asian journal or conference for instance - and you're likely to draw from a fresh pool of reviewers.
"Jane's Law of Journal Reviews: There is always at least one reviewer that completely misses the point of the paper. (Seriously, I'm curious...does this extend to other fields, too?)"
Yes. That, and the inevitable "anonymous" reviewer that insist you add references to half a dozen papers, all by the same author, that have nothing remotely in common with the main points of your paper but will of course improve the citation count for that author.
Posted by: Janne | December 4, 2008 3:22 AM
There is always at least one reviewer that completely misses the point of the paper.
Maybe not always, but very often. And it makes me wonder--is it because that person is totally stupid, or because I'm unclear? And how does the editor view that person? And how much do we have to go out of our way to appease them in the changes? Ugh. I really don't like that person.
Posted by: ianqui | December 4, 2008 10:38 AM
Prioritizing is good. Prioritizing is absolutely necessary in this job. But what do you do if you have time this month to do X projects, but X+1 projects are "high priority"?
In my experience, you end up collapsed in a little heap. Not to mention with a frazzled brain from the excessive "multi" when tasking.
Posted by: C | December 4, 2008 10:39 AM
Congratulations on the acceptance! Good luck with all the rest of it.
Posted by: ecogeofemme | December 4, 2008 7:00 PM
My own subfield of CS has great reviewers. I can almost always count on getting at least a page worth of comments from two of the three reviewers on any conference submission. Journal reviews are usually several pages long.
But when I submit outside my subfield, all bets are off. Usually I get a single short paragraph from each reviewer, and there's always at least one that clearly had no clue what the paper was about and made very little effort to figure it out.
Posted by: lylebot | December 5, 2008 9:17 AM
a journal article I sent out for review before its time, which I thought would be a sure reject, just came back as a strong revise&resubmit
w00t!!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 9, 2008 6:15 PM