WHAT’S WRONG WITH WEEDS?
Why are WEEDS such a problem? They are insidious, covert, stealth-like, creeping behaviors, habits, attitudes, activities, and relationships that are difficult to identify. They look like the real thing, but, instead, come along side and slowly suck the breath out of the real thing and destroy it. They can pop up everywhere you turn.
Consider your level of involvement and intensity in your daily tasks, such a teaching classes, writing grant proposals, journal manuscripts, and e-mail responses, and attending a bazillion meetings. It’s really difficult to step back and gain perspective to see the weeds interfering with those tasks. You’re too busy spinning your professorial wheels and expending great effort and energy to complete the tasks at hand to even notice:
“What’s wrong with this picture?” “Why isn’t this working?” “Why can I make any headway?” “Why do I feel so discouraged?”
WHAT ARE THE WEEDS IN YOUR LIFE?
What are the elements in your professional life that are negatively affecting your productivity? There are at least 5 categories of weeds that can kill your productive spirit: (1) mind, (2) heart, (3) relationships, (4) time, and (5) environment. This blog will start with your mind.
1. WEEDS IN YOUR MIND: Although most of you are not Wide World of Sports professional athletes, do you ever experience the “Agony of Defeat”? Does the constant barrage of disappointments, rejection, and failures get to you? How do you respond to these sources of discouragement? What are your “HIT RATES” with the following?
• grant proposals
• journal submissions
• conference proposals
• book prospectuses
• teaching load
• committee work
• student evaluations
• peer evaluations
• department chair evaluations
• reviews for promotion and tenure
Do any of these or a combination bring you to your knees and discourage you from pursuing your goals? Are you on the verge or have you reached your Quitting Quotient (QQ)?
These feelings are weeds growing in your mind that can prevent you from achieving your goals. They yield negative self-talk and counter-productive attitudes that can arrest your development and progress. Every hit seems to get bigger and bigger.
Do you have any of the preceding weeds? Jot them down so you can plan an attack. My next blogs will examine the weeds in your heart, relationships, time, and environment. Weeds just keep growing in us and around us everywhere.
COPYRIGHT © 2010 Ronald A. Berk, LLC
2ND BLOG FROM TAIWAN:The final blog in this series on journal publishing comes to you from Taichung, Taiwan, home of Chung Shan Medical University. Traveling outside of the U.S. to another country and culture always puts my life into perspective. This trip has been no different than my previous trips. This experience has been incredible and the people I have met on this journey have been so gracious. It is with the deepest humility as a professional, that I present this blog.
TOP 3 TIPS
This blog series and the comments in the discussions on the LinkedIn Higher Education Teaching & Learning group have been larded with advice, tips, and insights. I wish I had known all of this when I started publishing.
To end this series, I thought I’d list the 3 most valuable tips I could offer to improve your success in journal publishing:
1. DO YOUR JOURNAL HOMEWORK: Study the journals thoroughly for what they publish, writing style, readership, theory or practice, and special issues past and future to which you might contribute. Write your article for a specific journal in the pub style they require. Don’t shotgun your article to any random journal in hopes that it will hit the target.
2. REQUEST COLLEAGUES FOR PRE-SUBMISSION REVIEWS: Send your manuscript to trusted experts on your topic who can provide input on everything about your manuscript before submitting to a journal. They can greatly improve the accuracy of the content, style of writing, and quality of writing that can markedly improve your chances of success, plus suggest appropriate journals.
3. PERSEVERE: Never give up no matter how stinging the editor’s or reviewers’ comments may be. After you get off your knees, bounce right back and hit every criticism in your revision or cover letter. KEEP MOVING FORWARD and have several manuscripts in review and in progress at all times.
POSTMORTUM
I’ve learned sooo much from reviewers’ comments over my 35 years of writing articles for journals. I can’t do it alone. Further, a regular diet of editors’ and reviewers’ comments can sustain a spirit of humility throughout your writing career, plus it may even result in a few worthwhile contributions to the published literature.
BEST WISHES IN ALL OF YOUR PUBLISHING EFFORTS!
COPYRIGHT © 2010 Ronald A. Berk, LLC
1ST BLOG FROM TAIWAN: This blog is being posted from Taipei. Time-wise, they're a bit ahead of Eastern U.S. time. In fact, it's almost Christmas here. The lights are going up as I type. Haha. After a 27-hr flight, I'm slightly punchy. Anyway, it's blog time. Back to rejection!
TWO TYPES OF REJECTION DECISIONS
If the editor’s decision is: “the manuscript is inappropriate for the journal,” which may occur before the review process, he or she may suggest other journals that are more appropriate. This decision usually occurs very quickly. Over the past 6 months, I’ve received those rejections within 24 hours of submission thanks to the miracle of “electronic rejection.”
If the manuscript is sent out for review, the editor may decide: "rejected without the option to resubmit." In this case, a thoughtful editor or reviewer may also suggest other journals if they find merit in the paper and expect you will revise it.
A VISIT TO TOTAL REJECTION-LAND!
Now what do you do? You have a manuscript that’s been whacked as inappropriate or with buckets of changes to be made.
You have several choices available. Pick one of the following:
A. Send the manuscript to your recycle bin
B. Send out the manuscript to a “more appropriate” journal without any changes
C. Revise the manuscript based on the editor’s and/or reviewers’ feedback and then send it out to another journal
D. Put it on the backburner and refocus on a different manuscript
E. Refill your prescription meds quickly
F. All of the above
Most frequently, I will choose “B” or “C,” depending on the manuscript, and “E.” (A little pharmaceutical humor.) On only one occasion did I elect “D,” to rewrite a manuscript a year later after rejection and do not resubmit. It was finally published.
CONSIDER REVISION
If you can correct the flaws that one set of reviewers found, you’ll be one up on the next band of reviewers from the next journal. Unless the comments were totally inappropriate or unfounded, think about them carefully and decide which ones suggest the need for legitimate changes. Then make them.
If you don’t try to improve the quality of your manuscript before submitting elsewhere, you may end up with many of the same criticisms and rejection again. You’re back at square one. You haven’t progressed and the manuscript is still inadequate for publication. Use all of the FREE feedback you get from editors and reviewers. Their comments on the quality of your work will improve your writing and the meaningfulness of your contributions.
COPYRIGHT © 2010 Ronald A. Berk, LLC
AUTOPSY THE COMMENTS
Make a “WHY” incision and dissect each comment systematically. Decide whether you are willing to complete the change or, if the comment is inappropriate or a misinterpretation of your writing, address the comment in your cover letter. Argue your case respectfully for why you didn’t make the change. Be clear in your justification; otherwise the reviewer may challenge you again.
It is critical that you address every comment by the editor and the reviewers. Make sure you itemize the comments in your letter and indicate whether you made the changes or explain why you didn’t. That covers you and insures your integrity in the process. You’re playing by the rules. The editors should also play by those same rules. Most of the time, they do.
BAD EXPERIENCE ALERT: One time during all of my submission, I received 2 out of 3 reviewers’ comments and the editor’s request to make specific changes. As I was completing the revision, I received the 3rd reviewer’s comments in the mail (back in the days of pony express), which obviously were sent in late, asking for a major revision. Is that playing fair? You be the judge. I called the editor and negotiated the changes I was willing to make. Sometimes you can get blind-sided by the blind-review process.If you were the editor, what would you have done with a late review?
SUBMIT LETTER WITH REVISION
Submit your MAJOR revision with your detailed cover letter addressing the editor’s and reviewers’ comments. When your revision is submitted, the editor will usually send it back to the same reviewers, unless they have previously indicated they don’t want to review the revision. Editors provide that professional courtesy to reviewers.
What happens to that revision? The editor either accepts it as is OR, (I know you don’t want to read the rest of this sentence, so close your eyes until you’re ready) sends it back to you for another revision. That possibility was covered in the previous blog that you skipped. Check it out.
If you plan on submitting your manuscript to another journal, should you make any revisions at all, or just submit? Why should you put yourself through that pain? The next editor doesn’t know where your manuscript has traveled on its publication journey, much less how many times it’s been whacked. Check out my next blog as your options unfold. Don’t hold your mouse so tightly. Relax.
COPYRIGHT © 2010 Ronald A. Berk, LLC
KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE
After you’ve read the comments and recovered emotionally from their impact (maybe put the manuscript aside for a couple of days, but not years), try to examine each comment objectively and assess what changes are required. I can say almost unequivocally that all of my revised manuscripts were better than the originals. After all, that’s really what counts. The process usually works successfully to yield an improved final article.
Someone once said a long time ago: “Forget what is behind and strain toward what is ahead. Press on toward the goal in winning the prize.” Keep your eye on the prize—that “new & improved” end product in mind. The wounds will heal and there will be understated elation when the article finally “hits the streets” or cyberspace for e-journals. It’s definitely worth the experience, plus you have another pub notch in your CV list.
DOES REVISION IMPROVE YOUR CHANCES OF PUBLICATION?
For the journal editor who requested minor revisions or rejected your manuscript, but is willing to reconsider after a major revision, your chances are very high it will be published. That decision is contingent on the quality of your revision and the extent to which you have successfully addressed all of the reviewers’ comments.
There is built-in accountability in the review process. Typically, the revised manuscript will be sent to those same reviewers. They must approve your changes based on their original comments. However, keep in mind that they may not be totally satisfied with all changes. They could request another revision. Hold on to your keyboard. The peer-review plot thickens.
CAN YOU BE REQUESTED TO REVISE YOUR REVISION?
You bet! Those reviewers may require another round of revisions. Two or three rounds are not uncommon for the most prestigious journals. Their editorial boards and reviewers are very demanding. That’s why publishing in those journals matters when you come up for promotion. Just stay with it, hunker down, and address all of their concerns on each iteration. Hopefully, your manuscript will be getting better and better. At least, theoretically, that should be the by-product of this process.
Hopefully, your revised revision will finally yield an acceptance verdict by the editor.
In your revision decision process, what should you do if you disagree with the editor’s and/or reviewers’ comments? What are your options? How should those comments be addressed? Stay tuned. The answers are coming up next.
COPYRIGHT © 2010 Ronald A. Berk, LLC
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
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
Once you’ve written a bunch of articles on one major topic, think about how you can convert them into book chapters. Where do you begin editing? What will change in your chapter versions? First, let’s examine the differences between articles and book chapters. Here is a trifecta of factors:
1. Target readership, audience, or niche: Their interests and sizes differ. In general, the journal’s readership is often narrower than the audience for your book, especially on research topics. It will also be considerably smaller. Your chapter should aim at a readership size larger than your family and at least equal to or greater than the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. You need a large pool of people who will buy your book. Otherwise, your annual royalty will not even fill your gas-guzzling SUV once.
2. Writing style: The scholarly, serious, stuffy, academic style of most journals requires that you stay on the straight and narrow writing path; your chapter style can be the same or considerably different, depending again on your readership. The book is yours; the article is the editor’s. BIG DIFFERENCE. You can increase interest in “serious” content by adding graphics, cartoons, famous quotes, pictures, and maybe even humor. This is YOUR baby. Make it yours by using your imagination, creativity, and God-given writing gifts.
(Personal Note #1: My first 8 books followed the traditional route; the last 5 smashed that mold with humor. Inserting humor into any book can be risky. Almost all books, even those on humor and stand-up comedy, are written seriously. I used humor in my book on faculty evaluation strategies (Thirteen Strategies to Measure College Teaching), which included chapters on the research literature on each strategy, scale construction, statistical item analysis, score interpretation, and other heavy-duty topics. This book also cited 550 references. Early reviews of the book manuscript were very negative, not because of the content, but because of the humor. It was considered inappropriate for a topic so important and serious to administrators and faculty. Since there were other serious books on scale construction and evaluation methods, why should anyone bother to read my book? I needed to address the three topic criteria described in the last 2 blogs. The content had to be structured differently from previous works and the writing style needed to be more user-friendly, especially on technical topics. I took my lumps and early rejections and decided to make the book mine. I wanted a funny section on “factor analysis” that everyone might understand and enjoy reading. End of Bloated Note.)
3. Length: Articles have maximum length requirements; chapters do not, within reason. Chapters provide a lot more flexibility to add material such as the above. (Secret Writing Strategy: I ALWAYS write the serious content for an article or chapter first. Once the meat is complete, which is usually adequate for journal submission, I go back and look for opportunities to add humor or visuals to the chapter version. The humor in my chapters is an add-on to the content. It may be used to exaggerate or amplify specific concepts, theories, or processes or to bring to life really deadly, boring material. That will increase the length of the chapter. End of Secret Kinda Note.)
Consider the preceding trifecta of factors as you review your articles. Who is going to buy your book? What will distinguish it from all other books on the topic? What writing style are you going to use? What additions to the article will make it more interesting or palatable to your readers?
To those of you who are writers, please let me know any suggestions I’ve missed or what you have found useful. As writers in academe or out, we could use all of the help available. Our careers are on the line. Other techniques will follow in future blogs.
The next blog will deal with assembling your "chapter-articles" into a book.
COPYRIGHT © 2009 Ronald A. Berk, LLC
