.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}


"...another reason I'm intrigued with the hanged of Salem, especially the women, is that a number of them aroused suspicion in the first place because they were financially independent, or sharp-tongued, or kept to themselves. In other words, they were killed off for the same sort of life I live right now but with longer skirts and fewer cable channels." Sarah Vowell, The partly cloudy patriot.



I sent an article in to a journal a couple weeks ago. It was first assigned to someone I know, then reassigned since she knew me, and then today it was rejected.

The editor said it didn't fit the scope of the journal because it didn't analyze new data, nor was it a review article (which was defined as a comprehensive review of the literature in an area).

I thought my article would be considered a review article - so now I don't know what to call it in shopping for a new journal to which to submit it. Can anyone offer a type?

I take the work in one area and use it as a lens to analyze a second area in order to create a new perspective on the second area. Through my analysis, I do a pretty comprehensive review of the second area through the lens of the first area. Does that make sense? For example, if I were to take the rumination theory of depression and apply it to ptsd to help us see ptsd in a different way and to create a new direction for research and treatment (this isn't what I did at all - it's just an example).

So what is that called? Is that a theoretical article?


At 4:33 PM, Blogger Propter Doc said...

Perspective articles are common in chemistry, as are 'tutorial reviews' which are less comprehensive than full reviews but about techniques or subfields.

At 9:10 PM, Blogger BrightStar said...

Sounds like a theoretical article to me!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home