Temporary visa status is a growing source of inequality.
My dissertation chapter published in IMR uses 3.4M population-level administrative records of H-1B workers. I show they are OVEREDUCATED and paid 10% less than similarly employed U.S. citizens.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
Apparently I got the title wrong, it is actually "Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies." I like my title better though, maybe I should write that book as an update to Esping-Andersen.
There is a whole section of Esping-Andersen's Social Foundations of Postindustrial Society about the distribution of laundry services across different countries. The US is a huge outlier
What is the turnaround for demography journals these days? Last I heard Demography and IMR took a while. What about Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, Demographic Research and PRPR? Others?
The weird part about all of this is that #1 is a concern because it might not work well, and #3 is a concern that it works too well. They're both justified, IMO, because foundational technology that breaks 5% of the time for important things is a problem, as is something that can fool 95% of people.
I think there are several concerns that are valid. One is whether we can trust them for important tasks. Another is what the effect will have on us if we use them all the time. And a third is that very few people can actually tell whether a video / text is fake or not.
It isn't a path to AGI, which is why big fans of LLMs don't like it when it gets pointed out that this is how it works.
It *is* souped up autocomplete. But it is still an impressive bit of technology.
This PR company is called TOP Agency and you have to wonder if *anything* on their website is real.
They don't force everyone to pay money per article or for a huge bundled library subscription, so I'm fine with it.
I've had remarkable variation in the combinations of number of reviewers and rounds of review. I had one paper that had 5 R&Rs but only three reviewers. But that other paper I mentioned had 1 R&R and five reviewers.
Yeah that happens too, although amazingly the paper I referenced before only had one R&R before conditional accept. That was all one round, which made it a whole lot easier. It's when you start losing reviewers and gaining new ones that you get stuck in R&R hell.
(Also, R2, R4, and R5 combined had like 7,000 words between them.)
(I did get 5 reviews as an author once there, but I kind of understand it. R1 said, in about two sentences: "This is a terrible paper, don't publish it." R3 said, in about two sentences: "This is a great paper, publish it." I get it, those are reviews in name only.)
In contrast, I do not recall ever being a reviewer on a paper there that got an R&R decision unless there were *exactly* three reviews.
I have been a reviewer on papers at Social Forces that only got sent to two reviewers. It was always a reject. My guess is that if the two reviewers are negative enough on the paper that a third wouldn't affect the outcome that they just return the decision then.
UK: @pengzell.bsky.social @norawaitkus.bsky.social @zparolin.bsky.social @dirkwitteveen.bsky.social @tbiegert.bsky.social @markusklein.bsky.social @decastrogalvao.bsky.social @rrluthra.bsky.social
Italy: @hermwerf.bsky.social @marcoalbertini.bsky.social @stefanischerer.bsky.social @distasioval.bsky.social @mtriventi.bsky.social @emstruffolino.bsky.social @mhamjediers.bsky.social
France: @ppraeg.bsky.social @betthaeuser.bsky.social @oliviergodechot.bsky.social @mathieuichou.bsky.social @labussieremarie.bsky.social
Switzerland: @benitacombet.bsky.social
Spain: @fabriberna.bsky.social
Netherlands: @thijsbol.bsky.social @aforster.bsky.social @dieuwkezwier.bsky.social @sarageven.bsky.social @rozameuleman.bsky.social
Germany: @fabianpfeffer.bsky.social @flohertel.bsky.social @andreashaupt.bsky.social @nrmllr.bsky.social @kalf.bsky.social @tobiaswolbring.bsky.social @jwied.bsky.social @zamberlanna.bsky.social @patzinaalex.bsky.social @kpomi.bsky.social
Finland: @janierola.net
Denmark: @kbkarlson.bsky.social @birkelund.bsky.social @dianagalos.bsky.social
Iceland: @davidreimer.bsky.social
Norway: @aresherman.bsky.social
Exciting! Not sure who is out in Europe right now...let me check my starter pack...
I'm sure I am going to miss someone, but I'll tag the people I see here.
Ketchup chips...my great enemy rises again...
Why am I the only reviewer who notices that the independent variable is meters and the dependent variable is yards?
you shouldn’t learn about bands from shady TikTok manipulation, you should learn about bands by hanging out with a girl you like but are also extremely afraid of
@ruha9.bsky.social was planning on pushing for some of this when she ran for council. Again, my memory is awful, so I don't recall if she made any progress on it.
(This is also the origin of my "people who run for office must have a platform to get my vote." It showed me that we deserve better.)
I don't recall* doing so.
*I don't recall much, so that's a pretty big caveat
I don't have strong opinions on anything else in ASA except that the organization has a serious aversion to building the reach of the discipline.
If I were responsible for organizing a conference for sociology the only theme would be "Concrete Steps for Getting Sociology in the K12 Curriculum."
My opinion is that the recent history of ASA can be explained by someone being worried that a resolution to pursue open-access policies going to hurt revenue. And since revenue is the only thing ASA as an organization cares about, they decided to quash that possibility.