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
SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN PEER REVIEW-LAND!
Since I’m in a series on how to succeed through the peer-review process for publishing journal articles, I thought I’d interrupt my blog with an announcement you might be interested in reading on that topic.
I just received an email about a conference on peer review. Maybe you did too. This blurb by the International Symposium on Peer Reviewing cites a few contentious quotes about the process, such as
• Peer review "is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than do chance." (Horrobin, 2001) This has been statistically proven and reported by an increasing number of journal editors. (“OUCH!” said Ron.)
• Only 8% of the members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that “peer review works well as it is” (Chubin & Hackett, 1990, p.192).
On the other side of the fence,
• "Peer Review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice" (Goodstein, 2000). It is a necessary condition in quality assurance for Scientific/Engineering publications.
• "Peer Review is central to the organization of modern science…why not apply scientific [and engineering] methods to the peer review process" (Horrobin, 2001).
The references cited for these statements are given below:
Chubin, D. R., & Hackett E. J. (1990). Peerless science, peer review and U.S. science policy. NY: State University of New York Press.
Goodstein, D. (2000). How science works (pp. 66–72). Washington, DC: U.S. Federal Judiciary Reference Manual on Evidence.
Horrobin, D. (2001). Something rotten at the core of science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22( 2). Also at http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sci.html and http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/peerrev4.htm (both Web pages were accessed on February 1, 2010)
SOME THOUGHTS: So what are we supposed to do about these issues? As faculty trying to publish and hurdle the review process as it is, we should continue to hurdle. The criticism that peer review is fallible is certainly not new. The process is based entirely on professional judgment. We know that.
At present, despite the variability in editors and reviewers of the journals to which we submit our best work, the peer-review process is still the best we have. We submit manuscripts in good faith that there is integrity in the process.
Maybe the symposium will recommend steps for improvement. That would be great. But for now, we need to navigate through the process and produce, or else we won’t be around to discuss the polemics on any topic.
I will resume my suggestions for revising rejected manuscripts in my next blog. In the meantime, keep hurdling!
COPYRIGHT © 2010 Ronald A. Berk, LLC
WHY REJECTION?
You’re probably wondering why I write and speak about disappointment, rejection, and failure so often. Or, maybe not. The fact is: Writing productivity is proportional to writing rejection. Since my last blog, I've received 3 manuscript rejections. The more I submit to peer-reviewed journals, the more I get rejected. At least, that’s been my formula for rejection throughout my academic career. Even in retirement from JHU, I’ve been figuratively smacked all over the place by editors several times a month. Those manuscripts that have been published are not produced without significant scarring. It is a continuously humbling experience.
EDITORIAL DECISION OPTIONS
Anyway, the issue is what to do when you get whacked by a journal editor. The rejection menu usually consists of the following:
• Unconditional Acceptance, which means: "We love you!"
• Conditional Acceptance with Minor Revisions, which means: "We like you, kinda!"
• Rejection with Major Revision to Resubmit, which means: "You’re a moron!"
• Rejection, Do Not Resubmit Anywhere in the Universe, including British journals, which means: "Consider another career or stay in your lab and don’t come out!"
YOUR RESPONSE: When you receive 2 or 3 reviewers’ comments, which may be as short as 1 page or as long as 3 pages single-spaced, what do you do?
A. Cry
B. Drink alcohol
C. Take a controlled substance
D. Put out a contract on the editor
E. Torture the editor using Jack Bauer’s techniques on 24 until he or she reveals the names of the reviewers
F. All of the above
Did you get it right? After you've recovered from one of these initial reactions and had time to calm down and put your chainsaw back in the garage, do you revise or not?
So, do you suck it in, buck up, hunker down, and make the revisions or try to dream up other colloquialisms for this sentence?
My next blog will answer this question and suggest strategies to attack reviewers’ comments before you undertake any revision. Let me know your pub experiences. I hope you've had a higher hit rate than me.
COPYRIGHT © 2010 Ronald A. Berk, LLC
