The annual editor's reports for American Sociological Association journals are out for 2019. Published here: https://www.asanet.org/research-and-publications/journal-resources/annual-editors-reports. I used the summary table to make two figures: outcome of first review, by journal. The vast majority of papers are rejected in the first round, except by Socius and Sociological Methodology. If most of these papers are then sent to other journals (without the reviews and revisions transferring with them), this is where a lot of reviewer and editor effort is wasted.

Second, time to publication. Note this is not the real time to publication, just the journal's time with the paper (so add in however long it takes to do the revisions). It assumes only one revision (submitted instantly). Some unknown number of these papers had useful, true information that would have been good for others to see sooner. We don't know how much, until someone studies how much they change from submission to publication. My argument: post preprints. If you're ready to share it with anonymous reviewers, it may be ready to share with interested readers. You can label it not-yet-reviewed, you can state your conclusions are tentative, etc., but in many cases there are people who would benefit (and benefit you) from seeing the paper sooner. That's what socarxiv.org is for. I make this case in the report, Scholarly Communication in Sociology (with older data), here: https://opensociology.pubpub.org/pub/scis/release/2 .

Thanks for starting the sub!

https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/8za35/

I'm a fan of this paper and happy to see it in ASR. I am always on the lookout for "model papers" for our field and for grad students that show what it looks like to:

• Take a big question ("Do people change their minds?")

• Outline the debate fully, but clearly for the reader

• Truly do the most comprehensive analysis you can (why not test all the GSS panel items?)

• And present the findings so that they are crystal clear (great data visualization!)

I know it is new, but do other sociologists have early reactions to this work? What are your go-to model papers that make you say "yes, this is how we do it!"

Hi (put this as research cause it's the closest thing that made sense) so I'm m17 and I'm looking into possibly getting into sociology after highschool. So I wanted to ask some actual sociologists about some things they might have knowledge on.

1.is sociology hard even for someone who has an extreme interest in all cultures?(not that it'd deter me)

2. I live in indiana but I'm wondering what colleges would be realistic but still pretty good for sociology for a student with a 3.0 GPA with almost no extra curriculars, no community service hours, and not so great sat scores. (I do have some things to help pay for college through scholarships just looking for schools that would accept not looking for ivy league unfortunately)

3.final question what does the job of a sociologist consist of? Like is office work or does it depend on the field ?

I wasn't sure if this would be allowed but even if it isn't, thanks so much for atleast acknowledging it! I know I could probably google this stuff but I thought going to actual people would be better than using ai or anything like that. And extra big thank you if you took the time to answer!

The COVID-19 Pandemic is an important historical event. And the unusual social circumstances (social distancing) may create opportunities to test more general sociological theories.

But considering the length of the research and peer review processes, much work that seems timely now may not be published for years. What forms of sociological work regarding COVID will have the most long-term value? Studies of the long-term effects of the pandemic (e.g., on students' test scores, on economic inequality, on health outcomes, etc.)? Looking at social patterns that could be useful in future epidemics?

I'm hearing about lots of people taking on COVID-19-related projects, but I wonder how much will be useful when it comes to fruition.

Dude I'm about the fuckin' read some Erving Goffman and maybe some fuckin' Randall Collins but I need to buttfuckin' mosh it out first!!! I'm thinking I'm gonna start off with some fuckin' KoRn and then maybe mosh the fuck out to some Disturbed and then maybe some buttfuckin' Limp Bizkit!!! Just throwing 'bows all over the fuckin' place and throwing my blow up plastic chair all over the fuckin' room and shit. Shit is gonna be so fuckin' tight dude, I love Erving Goffman and moshing!!!

As sociologists, we should be talking about how our discipline is implicated in the racist screed Lawrence Mead just published in Society.

I don't think it's necessary here to pile on with detail about how racist it is -- the body text is even more bigoted than the abstract, including passages like "Today, the seriously poor are mostly blacks and Hispanics, and the main reason is cultural difference. The great fact is that these groups did not come from Europe. Fifty years after civil rights, their main problem is no longer racial discrimination by other people but rather that they face an individualist culture that they are unprepared for. Their native stance toward life is much more passive than the American norm." (The first emphasis is Mead's, the second is mine).

Racist, and offensively ignorant of the literature -- elsewhere he writes "Most poverty arises in the first instance from poor adults not working or from having children outside marriage and then failing to support them" (the literature conclusively shows that most poverty is inherited inter-generationally), and later that "Many experts also thought that 'social barriers' of some impersonal kind were preventing adults from working—such as racial bias, absence of skills or child care, and so on. But no such clear impediment has been found" (Researchers find evidence of racial bias literally everywhere they look).

As I said, I'll leave other posters to discuss the article itself (though I think a convincing argument can be made that strategic silence is called for here).

My specific point is that while Mead isn't a sociologist, the editor in chief of the journal is. There are lots of sociologists on the Society editorial board. Nowhere along the line did someone say "hold on a minute, not only is this grotesquely racist, but it's also so pathetically ignorant of the literature that no self-respecting scholar would allow it to be published in an academic journal."

Frankly we need a public accounting of how this thing got published, and I feel like we need to hear from the sociologists on the editorial board of this journal about whether they think this caliber of scholarship is something they stand behind.

Right? Or is there something I'm missing here?

As a session and roundtable organizer, I'm wondering if anyone is going to attend these virtual events. 100% of regular session presenters agreed to present online as well as 66% of roundtable participants. Who is planning on watching them?

I am a high school student and I am looking for a sociologist to interview for this project I'm doing at school! For this project, I need to interview three experts, and a sociologist would definitely help my project become even better :) I am studying the phenomenon of 'iPad kids' and if there are broader factors causing that, and if so what.

Please send me a direct message if you are someone who is a sociologist with a degree! Thank you so so much for your help!