In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:
[W]hat is the perceived value of invited contributions to peer-reviewed volumes? My thoughts on this are that, on the one hand, such papers should be greatly valued since they show that the author is good enough/ respected enough to be invited to contribute to the volume. On the other hand, my impression is that the peer-review standards are not that high when it comes to edited volumes compared to regular journals. I have the impression that it is very hard to get rejected once invited to contribute. What are your thoughts on this topic?
I think we may have discussed this before, but these are very good questions that it's probably important for graduate students and job-candidates to get good answers to. What do you all think? For obvious reasons, it might be good to hear from people who have served on search committees or tenure and promotion committees. Having served on both kinds of committees myself, here are a few quick thoughts.
My sense is that the perceived value of invited contributions may depend a lot upon the context–particularly, on what the rest of a person's CV looks like. To see why, compare the following two cases:
- Candidate 1: a job-candidate or candidate for tenure and promotion has only only one journal publication, and the venue is decent but not particularly impressive. Despite this, the person somehow has five invited book chapters in volumes published by the most prestigious presses (e.g. OUP, etc.).
- Candidate 2: a candidate has five publications in the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals. In addition to this, they also have one invited chapter in a volume published by decent but not particularly prestigious press.
My sense is that Candidate 1's file may raise some real questions. As the OP notes, one possibility is that they have been invited to contribute all of these pieces to edited volumes because the author's work is 'good enough/respected enough' to be invited for volumes like that. But of course this isn't the only possibility. Another possibility is that they are particularly well-networked, and some of the people they are well-networked with have biases in favor of them and their work. Of course, most of us would like to think that we can judge each other's work 'objectively.' But let's be honest with ourselves: human beings are not the most objective of possible creatures. We have all kinds of cognitive and emotional biases, many of which may operate well below the level of conscious awareness. So, here's another possibility: some of the people who think Candidate 1's work is 'good enough' for inclusion in all of these volumes may be biased in favor of the candidate's work on personal grounds.
Now, of course, if one is serving on a hiring committee or tenure and promotion committee, you may not know which of these possibilities is more likely, and it's probably not wise (or fair) to simply assume things one way or the other. You might need some more evidence, such as actually reading the invited contributions yourself to see whether you think they 'are all that', or whether they're really not great work. But regardless, here's the thing: the same questions don't arise for Candidate 2. This candidate has, as it were, proven their stuff by publishing a handful of pieces in really good peer-reviewed journals that presumably have anonymized review (which edited collections don't always have – another yellow flag, perhaps, about Candidate 1). Long story short, then: my sense is that all things being equal, Candidate 2's file is likely to be perceived much better than Candidate 1's. Again, this is just my experience, but in my experience hiring committees and T&P committees may want to see candidates 'prove themselves' via the anonymized peer-review process, such that it's clear that they are publishing effectively on the merits of their work rather than (potentially) on the basis of their 'connections.' Of course, as noted above, my sense is that these are 'all things equal' claims. A lot may depend upon the committee's own estimation of the candidates' work itself (viz. writing samples, etc.).
A follow-up comment just submitted by one reader seems to me broadly in line with this:
I'm not sure they [invited pieces] should be valued for the reason you mention. After all, if you happen to be the student of a famous scholar, then maybe you'll get more invitations than a less connected young mid researcher: cooptation is really the dominant force in academia. I think that invited chapters are interesting though because, as you say, peer review standards are lowered. But this is not necessarily a bad thing: it also means that you won't get nipticker or offensive comments, or simply your paper will not get rejected because the editor can only accept a limited number of papers. Therefore, I think that with invited chapters, people will see the real intellectual and scholar that you want to be, because you dont have to adapt your style for journal x or y, or please reviewers. At least, that's the impression I get anytime I write an invited chapter vs for a journal
This is an interesting response in that it highlights the fact that a lot may depend on the quality of the work itself (though one issue here is that hiring committees may not read the work in question). In any case, my sense is that invited pieces are likely to be perceived better the more one has 'proven oneself' by publishing in good journals. But this is just my sense. What's yours, particularly those of you who have served on hiring or T&P committees?
Leave a Reply