Read on Twitter
Announcement! Job Opportunity! Please RT!!
I’m leaving my post as editor for social and behavioral sciences @ScienceMagazine and they’re looking for my replacement. It’s a fantastic, important, meaningful job. Deadline June 10, rolling basis. Link below
http://bit.ly/editorSocialSciences
I’m leaving my post as editor for social and behavioral sciences @ScienceMagazine and they’re looking for my replacement. It’s a fantastic, important, meaningful job. Deadline June 10, rolling basis. Link below
http://bit.ly/editorSocialSciences
I'll add some thoughts here as I think of them-
1) I was not fired!
A (different) dream job came up and I took my shot and they went over the top to convince me it was the right play.
2) Editor at Science is better than 99% of jobs, I just found one of the few I wanted more
1) I was not fired!
A (different) dream job came up and I took my shot and they went over the top to convince me it was the right play.
2) Editor at Science is better than 99% of jobs, I just found one of the few I wanted more
3) Its a real, full-time job! Pays a good salary and benefits and such! This is not akin to taking an AE role at a disciplinary journal. https://twitter.com/tage_rai/status/1391848320092581892
4) Job responsibilities-
I'll start w/the concrete. Your coverage is almost all the social sciences, excluding cog neuro. So psych, econ, poli sci, soc, anthro, comp soc sci. Papers come in, you work w/the advisory board to decide which papers go to in-depth review. 1/
I'll start w/the concrete. Your coverage is almost all the social sciences, excluding cog neuro. So psych, econ, poli sci, soc, anthro, comp soc sci. Papers come in, you work w/the advisory board to decide which papers go to in-depth review. 1/
The advisory board (which you help to build) is made up of some of the best social scientists in the world from across disciplines. They help w/desk decisions primarily. Following in-depth review, you must decide to accept/reject and work w/authors to improve MS 2/
This stage is different from disciplinary journals. There is considerably more involvement by you, the editor. Part of your job is to help authors develop their papers in data, writing, and analysis. Its not copy-editing, more conceptual/deeper. 3/
There are a variety of other responsibilities as well, including putting together special issues, wherein you solicit reviews on a particular topic (see ex. below) or writing short blurbs to highlight work in other journals, etc. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6508
5) Interlude- Pay. Someone asked me about salary- I always get quesy answering but I agree transparency is best. My sense is this varies depending on experience, qualifications, etc. I was initially offered 77K 3 years ago, negotiated for a bit more but I had other offers.
I see that range of salary as competitive w/the best post-docs. More importantly, I feel like the salary is commensurate to the work, even if I feel my colleagues are could earn more elsewhere. So its a mix of fair compensation for labor plus mission that keeps people there.
6) This is a great Q- Historically, people could come from anywhere, but they had to work in DC or UK office. Now, many people work remote, but it depends on local laws 1/ https://twitter.com/seanhughes102/status/1391851987063513088
I work in Boston, MA, which is fine. However, there are a few states where you can't work b/c of tax laws. Similarly, I think we used to be able to work w/EU, but post-Brexit, I think only remote workers in UK are covered. So it really depends on where someone lives.
7) Stepping back, why take this job?
@ScienceMagazine is one of a couple outlets where you can publish real science that connects to the public and policymakers. If you want to help guide the direction of the social sciences as a field, this is a place to do it 1/
@ScienceMagazine is one of a couple outlets where you can publish real science that connects to the public and policymakers. If you want to help guide the direction of the social sciences as a field, this is a place to do it 1/
In my case, at the time I saw Science as a place w/massive potential for social sciences that was variable in terms of quality. I wanted to see if I could get the performance to match the potential. What would that look like? 2/
I can't honestly say that I feel like I accomplished the goal. I had a 5 year plan, and I only got through half that time, which itself was derailed by covid. But the upside is that there's plenty for the next person to do to take it higher and put their stamp on it 3/
I also needed out of academia at the time- I was getting bitter. I was slowing down. I needed more flexibility, less stress. But here's what I didn't know- I'm almost positive my time at Science enhanced my CV for industry and academic jobs. All of a sudden, I was fresh again 4/
8) Concerns w/the job-
A)You have to reject a lot of papers. This takes a mental toll. Since my arrival, the number of submissions have more than doubled. Many of these are cool papers, but the fit isn't right. In that sense, the job felt restrictive 1/
A)You have to reject a lot of papers. This takes a mental toll. Since my arrival, the number of submissions have more than doubled. Many of these are cool papers, but the fit isn't right. In that sense, the job felt restrictive 1/
Part of this is that internally, I felt a lot of pressure. Any article we publish has outsize impact, and so it feels like it has to be right. The gap between publishing at Science/Nature and the rest in terms of impact is too great. This is a flaw of the journal system 2/
I should emphasize every editor has papers that don't work out. And all of my colleagues understand. But if we published certain papers it would be like a golden ticket for authors to sell their tool or intervention to policymakers. And so I felt I had to be conservative. 3/
Interlude- Another good Q. I will be handling new submissions till July 1. After that, I'll help w/papers still under review, special issues, training new person, etc. for a little while as needed. https://twitter.com/smgaddis/status/1391875093609943042
B) Like other top organizations, AAAS is exceedingly white. At the editor level (say around 25 people), there were only ever a couple minorities during my time. Historical numbers are likewise shocking. To their credit, they are working to fix this 1/
Part of the problem is Science's strong retention. But all that whiteness means blindspots, conflicts, frustration. Race neutral policies are anything but when you're the minority in the room. Again, they are committed to improving- I once assigned reading, h/t @victorerikray. 2/
My sense (I can't confirm beyond my own inbox) is that over the years there was a constant stream of white guy profs emailing my bosses calling for me to be fired, claiming I was reverse-racist, that I made them feel vulnerable/was threatening their careers. So there's that 3/
9) What is AAAS looking for in the next Science editor?
This is a good segue to this question! We've had a lot of talk about this. I'm happy to report that @ScienceMagazine is pleased w/the direction we're going in and want to continue 1/ https://twitter.com/ewrigleyfield/status/1391880863428739074
This is a good segue to this question! We've had a lot of talk about this. I'm happy to report that @ScienceMagazine is pleased w/the direction we're going in and want to continue 1/ https://twitter.com/ewrigleyfield/status/1391880863428739074
We have 3 objectives
A) Highly interdisciplinary work- The papers that will be missed by half their audience if they get published in a disciplinary outlet, and whose potential as a final product will be maximized at Science compared to a disciplinary outlet. 2/
A) Highly interdisciplinary work- The papers that will be missed by half their audience if they get published in a disciplinary outlet, and whose potential as a final product will be maximized at Science compared to a disciplinary outlet. 2/
B) Papers with high policy value and social relevance to the public. Orders of magnitude more people will be exposed to a paper at Science- what are the papers that attention is best spent on? 3/
C) What research needs to be elevated to shift and course-correct social science as a field? Lately I've been giving a short talk on this drawing on my editing experience. I think the answer is clear. The erasure of race in much of social science theory is our biggest problem 4/
I didn't realize the extent of this blindspot when I took the job, in that sense its been enlightening, and I feel my own thinking is fresher than ever. But whereas I thought I'd be the person for the job, I now hope I'm more of a bridge to someone better :) 5/
My own background stretches from cog psych to anthro. Whomever takes over might need even wider breadth, but more importantly, they'll need to be able to see what I and a lot of successful academics enmeshed in white networks miss. 6/
10) One more thing- @ScienceMagazine is the first place I've worked where I didn't feel like I was constantly being judged or evaluated on whether I was good enough to be there. I took it for granted in academia, and didn't realize how much of a weight it was till it was gone 1/
I've met so many profs questioning their careers. And they're the ones who made it! That makes this next part scary, but exciting. I've decided to come back to academia- this job clicked all the boxes
Happy to announce that this Fall I'll start as a professor at Rady UCSD! 2/
Happy to announce that this Fall I'll start as a professor at Rady UCSD! 2/
Oh, and of course, always remember- https://twitter.com/tage_rai/status/1381406822414872579
