I and a colleague recently had a paper published in Agricultural Systems that examined absorptive capacity and social capital affect the number of new practices adopted on Western Canadian farms. If you’re interested in reading such things, you can find it here.
Anyway, as I am now ‘known’ to the editors of AGSY, I’m now in their universe of reviewers. Recently I was asked to review a paper on a topic in my research area for AGSY. Come to find out, I am reviewer number three (gasp!).
First a little background on publishing. How publishing works is authors devote many hours writing/sharing/presenting/editing a paper, and then they submit it to a journal in their field. The editor(s) then look at the paper and give it an initial review where they decide to either send it to review or to politely (or not) reject it as not suitable for that publication. The reviewers are then given some time (2 months, 6 months, whatever) to conduct the peer review and offer comments on revisions to the authors and their opinion if the paper should be published to the editor. Typically there are two reviewers, but I have seen more (as editors may ask for multiple reviews in case of a slow reviewer but they all come back ‘on time’).
What really burns authors is when REVIEWER NUMBER THREE parachutes into the process after the first round of revisions. Now the authors have already made changes that R1 and R2 have asked for, but when the 2nd revision comes back, we have these comments from R3 coming out of left field. Reviewer Number Three is so much of a thing that they have actually made a Downfall parody on it. Watch it here.
I’m not sure what the editors are looking for…do they want a real review or a Reviewer Number Three review? So conflicted.
I am sitting in the Las Vegas airport waiting to board my flight to Minneapolis having just left the last session of the Western Education and Research Activities conference that was held at the lovely Excalibur Hotel and Casino. One participant traveled all the way from Nigeria to attend the conference. It was great to see both old and new faces.
For this group, I serve as the vice-chair, so I helped organize the conference along with the other members of the executive committee. This year’s meeting featured presentations that focused on agribusiness teaching and learning outcomes as well as presentations on risk management in agri-food chains, global agri-food chains, and entrepreneurship and marketing.We had a pretty good turn out of 24 members, but we would always like a few more. We had a nice discussion during out business meeting about how to increase participation for future meetings. I think we got some good ideas and I am excited to try them out for the next meeting, which will be held in Santa Clara, CA next year.
Next week I head to Atlanta for the International Food and Agribusiness Management Association meetings where I will be presenting some research from one of my graduate students. Now if I could just finalize the presentation….
Well, the school year is finally over for me. Exams have been marked and grades are submitted, so now I get to do what I want to do. I am currently working on a few research projects and will be presenting some of the findings at various conferences this summer.
The first conference I am attending is the Alberta Agricultural Economics Association meetings which are being held in Red Deer, Alberta. This is my first go-round as an invited speaker, so that is new. At these meetings, I will be presenting some of my research on agricultural innovation. I have never attended this conference, so I am excited to see the presentations and meet some new people. The world of agricultural economics is a small one, and even more so when it is limited to a specific region within a specific country. For those interested, a copy of my slides are available here
After the Red Deer meetings, I have a few weeks at Saskatoon before on the road to Las Vegas and Atlanta for two other meetings. Then off to Warsaw and Washington, DC in July and August. Should be a fun summer!