UP CLOSE & PERSONAL: Here’s some intel on my perspective for writing these blogs. I’ve published nearly 150 articles in 80 different journals in education, psychology, medicine, nursing, and public health with probably 95% of the decisions requiring some type of revision. The number of rejections per submission usually far exceeds my expectations. I’ve been rejected by the best. On the other side of the editorial process, I have served on several editorial boards of psychometric and medical journals and as a reviewer for 16 other journals. In the academic arena, rejection becomes a natural part of the job. Promotion at research universities, in particular, hinges, in part, on your publication productivity.
COMMENTS YOU SHOULD READ: If you are on LinkedIn professional network, you should join the Higher Education Teaching and Learning Group. It’s the largest group of its kind, plus you can contribute to discussions and learn from them. Why mention that here? I needed filler. Kidding.
Recently I listed a previous blog title on that group discussion and received some excellent, very thoughtful and insightful comments from experienced writers and editors, including Deborah Lafky, Linda McPhee, Michael Coolsen, Tamar Almor, Rob Kleine, and David Brock. Please read those instructive comments if you write for journals. BTW Also, join LinkedIn if you haven’t. It’s for professional networking, not social communication.
CAN PRE-SUBMISSION FEEDBACK IMPROVE YOUR CHANCES OF JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE?
MAYBE! So why do it? Read on.
Suppose instead of submitting your “final” manuscript to a journal, you send it to a few content-appropriate colleagues for their reaction first. Always put a deadline for their reviews. By colleagues here, I mean anyone in the world you know who can provide meaningful input.
Can that step improve the manuscript and its chances of acceptance later or just alienate your colleagues?
What happens? There are 2 results:
(1) rarely will I receive feedback from all of my colleagues because they’re so busy, and
(2) the feedback I do receive is often invaluable.
Usually, your colleagues will tell if they can review it in your timeframe. Although their reviews are not anonymous as in the journal blind-review process, they will be very honest and supportive. They catch editorial errors as well as suggest substantive changes, plus they can suggest appropriate journals so you don’t get whacked immediately by a journal editor.
I always make the changes and ask their permission to acknowledge their contribution to the manuscript with a credit line. My manuscript is always improved, but this step never guarantees it will be accepted by a journal. I’m still on my own and left to hang out and dry in the editorial review process. However, at least, I’m submitting a better quality manuscript. I also return the favor and review colleagues’ papers when requested. I highly recommend this step before journal submission.
Have any of you engaged in the process I described above? Let me know your thoughts and recommendations.
How do you revise your manuscript after receiving several single-spaced pages of comments? This can often be a painful task. My next blog will address this pain.
COPYRIGHT © 2010 Ronald A. Berk, LLC
No comments:
Post a Comment