Dear Terry,
My belief is that this is a serious understatement of the time a journal
article requires.
We did a study some years back at the Norwegian School of Management. From
first concept through publication, we found that many articles took close to
1,000 hours. That's why people often publish only one or two good articles
in a year. Getting an article into a top quality, high-impact journal every
other year while turning out a journeyman piece or two for decent journals
is considered good work.
As I mentioned in a note earlier today, I spend an average of six hours
simply reviewing an article.
When I write, I'll often spend several days of work simply tracking down and
double checking my references.
Responding to reviewer comments, writing the response, and amending the
manuscript usually takes several days of work.
80 hours for an article in a good journal just can't be right.
Of course, I could simply be slow. My dog certainly thinks so. But he's an
intelligent fellow who has never had to revise an article in his life.
Yours,
Ken
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 23:46:31 +0800, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>For what it is worth, some typical times for
>producing/revising/administering papers seem to be ~40hs for a conference
>paper and ~ 60-80 hrs for a journal paper. These exclude time for getting
>research funding, data gathering or deep data analysis. Where universities
>give a day a week for research, then after all the other things that chip
>into this time, it means that each paper is likely to take several months.
>This timescale of snippets of time over months suggests it might not be a
>great environment for master/apprentice learning processes.
|