Thanks to all of you for reviewing. I have now completed my own review of your comments.
@Richard, some of the formulations you found unclear were due to the way Jan found to work around the lack of a suggestion mode in Overleaf:
They should be solved now.
The affiliation problem is solved.
We are left with the purposive sampling observation. I do not find it very central in a paper on network reduction. Network reduction starts when the data are there, and, like Richard commented in Overleaf, the choice of who to include in the study is always a critical one. It will shape the network, just as it will shape everything else in the study! I suggest a footnote to show we are aware of the problem, and move on.
@melancon I also accepted your suggestions. Note that we no longer use the concept of the stacked network. For legibility purposes, all subsections of section 5 (Techniques for network reduction) start with the CCN (unstacked) introduced in section 3. In the first step of each technique, we build a stacked without calling it that. I also removed references to the stacked from table 2.
Dear All, yes, I used boldface to indicate deletions.
Laitin is the sole author. I have a copy of the book with his autograph…
Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks were prepared for publication by others after he died (in prison). It is always hard to cite properly. Here is the definitive (I think) edition in English:Amazon.com
@Alberto - we could go for the “definitive” Italian edition? We did this with Claude Levi-Strauss (we cite the French originals).
Ok, all done. Figure 6 (ex figure 5) stays like it is. Tomorrow I will anonymize and submit. Thanks everyone, this is good work. I am really excited about this paper, truly interdisciplinary.
Super! Millions of thanks everybody (or “y’all,” as they say here in the South of the US)! It is interdisciplinary in the best sense of the term. @alberto: Do we know how long the review process is going to be?
Heads up: the submission process is a bit complicated. They don’t accept PDFs, I needed to upload the sepatate LaTEX files. With two issues:
By default, Overleaf calls the main text’s file main.tex. So, when you generate an anonymized version of the paper and a title page, they are both called main.tex. Even though you have a slot to upload the title page and a different one to upload the anonymized manuscript, this confuses the submission site. I had to manually rename one of the files.
Their LaTEX engine does not like bibliographies in separate BibTex files. So I had to put the bibliography in the main file.
I received a puzzling email from “Ethnography”. It says they cannot open the files (!), and could we re-upload in Word format (!!).
This is strange, because the PDF generated by their submission website checks out. Does anyone have any experience with this? Ping in particular @melancon and @bpinaud.
The text of the email follows:
Dear Dr. Cottica:
Your manuscript, ETH-21-0148, entitled “Comparing techniques to reduce networks of ethnographic codes co-occurrence” has been unsubmitted to Ethnography. I currently cannot open the files. When you resubmit, could you please upload the main anonymous document and the title page as word files? If you have images or figures please add those separately. Many thanks.
To re-submit your manuscript, please login to https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/eth and click on the Author Center link. Click the ‘Unsubmitted Manuscripts’ link in the ‘My Manuscripts’ list. Find the returned manuscript and click ‘Continue Submission’. You may make the necessary changes and submit the manuscript again. Please contact the Editorial Office if you have further questions.
Gosh. I have had to submit through manuscript central a few times and the LaTeX process always went smoothly. My guess is the editor is not comfortable with LaTeX
I am saying this because of the request they are now making to resubmit using Word
Update: I wrote back to the person, explaining how it all looks good from our end. He or she replied that she got confused (new on the job, apparently had not seen a laTEX submission before), and the files are in fact correct. I resubmitted. It now goes to the editors.
Update: the journal considers we are out of scope (if I understand the argument, we focus on treating the annotated corpus, not gathering it, and that is bad). There is a reason why multidisciplinary research does not get done!
I write you in regards to manuscript ETH-21-0148 entitled “Comparing techniques to reduce networks of ethnographic codes co-occurrence” which you submitted to Ethnography.
In view of the criticisms of the editors, your manuscript has been denied publication in Ethnography. The manuscript does not contain enough of a focus on theoretically-informed ethnography (reflection on fieldwork choices in relation to broader theoretical concerns and debates), which is the central theme of the journal.
Thank you for considering Ethnography for the publication of your research. Ethnography focuses on experimental forms of fieldwork and ethnography in interaction with broader theoretical concerns. Due to a rather large backlog, we are forced to give preference to manuscripts of the highest quality that specifically resonate with our journal’s focus.
That’s sucks. I’ve faced similar problems with sociology-psychology articles I’ve co-written. “Not sociological enough!”
We might therefore need to consider journals that focus specifically on research methods:
Hello, I am not terribly surprised, though the tone is interesting (“denied”) - may be an inexperienced intern. They are indeed focused on ethnographic fieldwork. Journal of Mixed Methods Research has a much higher impact factor, BTW! Fro a very quick perusal, it seems to me that we should try this first. Or a multiple submission to test the waters? Ciao.
