Becky Pettit, Editor, Social Problems

Much about the field of Sociology, including the definition of what constitutes a social problem worthy of study, has changed since the inaugural issue of Social Problems was published in 1953.  In many ways, we’ve come a long way from the all-male lineup of authors in that first issue that featured papers on ethnic relations, civil rights law, international relations, technological change, and worker displacement.  Most of our readers now have an electronic subscription to Social Problems and can read our award-winning articles on-line, ahead-of-print (http://www.jstor.org/stable/socialproblems.just-accepted).  At the same time, we still aspire to fulfill the promise of Social Problems articulated by Ernest Burgess in the inaugural issue in 1953 (and here interpreted by me):  to publish cutting-edge, theoretically oriented, empirical research on a wide variety of social problems.  Burgess (1953) noted that the journal’s founders aspired for the journal to raise morale among scholars, especially students, working in fields, using methodologies, or generating findings that may be particularly subject to – or undermined by – criticism.  He also noted that the association, and the journal, aimed to be a hospitable home for interdisciplinary research. 

As we receive a record number of submissions, yet continue to have the page space to publish a remarkably small fraction of them (<8%), how can we possibly accomplish all of these aims?  How can we structure a review process that provides useful feedback to authors, ensures high-quality empirical research, and still allows for the identification and ultimate publication of cutting-edge scholarship that pushes the boundaries of how we define social problems and how we do social science research?  The review process, reliant on the assessments of peers, is an inherently conservative enterprise, privileging existing status hierarches and conventional ways of doing social science research.   And, having a rejection rate of 92% is hardly morale-boosting material.   

Table 1 summarizes editorial decisions at Social Problems between June 1, 2012, and May 31, 2013.  We are an extremely selective journal, publishing approximately 8 percent of original submissions.  All submissions to the journal are initially reviewed by two members of the editorial board (an editorial board member and me).  If a paper is determined to be appropriate for peer review (about 70% of papers are peer-reviewed), we solicit the advice of three external reviewers.  Between June 1, 2012, and May 31, 2013, we received 328 new submissions to Social Problems.  This represents a 12.3% increase in submissions over the corresponding period in 2011-2012. Of the 328 new manuscripts submitted between June 1, 2012, and May 31, 2013, we made 274 initial decisions by July 1, 2013.  Our average time to decision is 103 days.  Every manuscript sent out for review has at least 3 external reviewers.  We rely on colleagues to voluntarily contribute their time and expertise to evaluate – and offer suggestions for improvement for – others’ research.  We’ve called on almost 1000 unique reviewers in just the past year and we thank each and every one of them for their generous contributions to the advancement of the discipline.     

Table 1.  New Submissions and Editorial Decisions, June 1, 2012-May 31, 2013[1]

In response to questions from authors and reviewers, we spent some time last year assessing the review process at Social Problems.  Although we routinely consider the distribution of decisions (e.g., deflect, reject, revise and resubmit, publish) and the time it takes us to reach them, we had not assessed social and demographic information about submitting authors or reviewers or considered how that information might reflect or reinforce patterns of inequality in accordance (or discordance) with our stated aims.  In order to more carefully consider those issues, I enlisted the help of an undergraduate student at the University of Washington, Caitlin Dickens, to code submissions, solicitations for reviews, completed reviews, and appeals and analyze them for differences by gender and rank.[2]  Our project was exploratory and it should be considered primarily as an internal evaluation of our review process.  Nonetheless, the findings are interesting and raise many questions, at least in my mind, about how we might structure a review process in keeping with the initial aims of the journal. 

Table 2 shows no discernible gender differences in submissions to Social Problems either within or across ranks in 100 articles selected for analysis.[3]  Forty percent of submissions come from graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, lecturers or researchers.  We received 2 more submissions from women than from men in this category.  Submissions are nearly equal between assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors (21, 20, and 20 percent of all submissions, respectively).  While the numbers are small, gender parity in submissions is striking.  Across tenure-stream faculty ranks, women submitted 26 articles and men submitted 29.

Table 2.  Submitting Author by Gender and Rank

Table 3 shows gender and rank differences in completing a review, given having been asked.  Assistant professors are more likely to agree to review than members of any other rank group.  They were invited to review 85 times and completed 45 reviews for a completed review rate of 53%.  Full professors were invited to review 261 times and completed 80 reviews for a completed review rate of 31%.  Women complete more reviews than men and women are more likely to review than men, given they are asked.  Male full professors complete the most reviews but female assistant professors are twice as likely to review as male full professors, given they are asked. 

Table 3.  Completed Review Rate by Gender and Rank

Gender differences in reviewing contrast sharply with gender differences in appeals.  During my editorial term, I have received 37 appeals to reconsider editorial decisions.  Six appeals were for deflect decisions, 14 were for papers rejected after review, and 17 were for papers rejected after a paper was reviewed, revised and re-reviewed.  Table 4 shows the distribution of appeals by gender and rank.  The largest number of appeals comes from assistant professors (43%) and men represent 73% of complainants.  Men are more likely to appeal than women at every rank, but among full professors making an appeal, men outnumber women by 11:1.  These patterns are particularly surprising given the gender and rank distribution of submitting authors and reviewers. 

Table 4.  Appeals to Editorial Decisions by Gender and Rank

Social Problems is not the journal it was in 1953.  The field has expanded, the pressure to publish has increased, and on-line submission systems certainly make it easy to submit articles for consideration for publication.  Yet, increases in the selectivity of the journal make it even less accessible as a publication outlet and there is clear potential for the review process to preference existing status hierarchies and established ways of doing social science research.  Although our reviewer pool is very broad, we more often solicit established senior (disproportionately male) scholars to review articles.  Yet, junior scholars -- especially women -- carry a disproportionately heavy burden of reviewing.  Reviewing is invisible, unpaid, and it is my impression that it is also undervalued as a form of service to the discipline despite its value to authors and editors. 

Perhaps even more striking are gendered differences in appeals to decisions.  Why is it that men – especially senior scholars – are so much more likely to appeal editorial decisions than are women?  Is this unique to Social Problems?  Does this mean we are doing something right or something wrong?  Rarely do these appeals involve the introduction of new information.  Instead, it is my impression that appeals often contest my qualifications or the qualifications of reviewers to assess the quality of scholarship.  If that is the case, such appeals could be viewed as symbolic contests over the appropriate (or inappropriate) exercise of power and authority.

As I enter the last few months of my editorial term at Social Problems, and as the journal passes into the able hands of Pamela Quiroz and Nilda Flores-Gonzalez at the University of Illinois-Chicago, I want to encourage authors doing research on the wide range of issues that might be conceptualized as social problems to think of Social Problems as an outlet for their scholarship.  While it is important to recognize that the ultimate chances of publication in Social Problems are quite slim, we are interested in continuing to realize the vision of Social Problems as the journal of the Society for the Study of Social Problems and as a hospitable home to theoretically oriented, empirical research that may be interdisciplinary in nature or particularly subject to criticism from “representatives of vested interests” or “reactionary groups” (Burgess 1953, p.3).  We will continue to do our best to solicit qualified reviewers that represent the diversity of the submissions we receive and who are able to evaluate an article on its own merits in a way that both provides useful feedback to authors and allows inroads for emerging, cutting-edge research.

Bibliography

Burgess, Ernest W.  1953.  “The Aims of the Society for the Study of Social Problems.”  Social Problems, 1(1):2-3.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/799176

Dickens, Caitlin.  2013.  Mom at Home, Mom at Work.  Senior Thesis.  University of Washington.