THE ANTITHESIS OF SALIERI’S WORDS!
As a neophyte academician in 1980, I was struck by that brilliant collection of words. Further, I was struck a second time by the message or rather the antithesis of the message. It was the opposite meaning of Salieri’s words that hit me between the eyeballs. Inter-ocular-wise, the antithesis undergirds our professional accountability and success:
“All that we say and do professionally must be regarded as distinguished by peers who are capable of distinguishing.” Berk’s Law (2010)
The “peer review process” establishes the credibility of our work and our worth. It determines the value of our contributions and our advancement in academia. That process also represents the standard of excellence in the profession. Although it is judgment-based and fallible, that standard is sacrosanct; mediocrity is simply unacceptable. (NOTE: These reflections also apply to many other professions.)
BOTTOM LINE: FAME and being regarded as DISTINGUISHED are based on what other people think about you. The culture perpetuates this notion of affirmation of our self-worth by others. Salieri knew the truth. Despite the legitimate role of peer review in our professional world, ultimately the quality of what we say and do is in our hands. That’s who we are now and who we will become.
This message was told slightly differently to hundreds of college basketball players at UCLA in the 1960s and ‘70s by their legendary coach John Wooden who recently passed away: “Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.”
What are your thoughts on any of the preceding reflections? Something must have stirred within or outside of you. Tell me. Come on, spew it out. You know you want to comment. What struck you? Do it!
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
ADDENDUM TO PRE-SUBMISSION BLOG:
In my zeal to focus on colleagues to review a manuscript, I forgot to mention a traditional strategy most of us used throughout our pub career, probably beginning in grad school: PLAGIARISM! Oops! Wrong strategy. I meant: PRESENT THE PAPER AT A CONFERENCE. Linda McPhee mentioned this in one of her blog comments yesterday.
A conference presentation can furnish 2 sets of reviews:
1. When you submit a proposal to your conference committee, you can obtain reviews from 3 anonymous reviewers in a blind-review process, and
2. If it is accepted and presented, at the conclusion of your presentation session in a paper or symposium format, 1 or 2 discussants will critique all of the papers. Although this critique is not as detailed as a written review, it will usually hit the main points, both positive and negative. Sometimes, the discussant will give you a copy of his or her comments; if not, request them.
What valuable feedback this step provides before you submit to your fave journal. Thank you, Linda. (NOTE: Please continue to read the comments on the Higher Education Teaching and Learning group of LinkedIn. They’re too numerous to repeat here.)
QUESTION: Should you make the minor or major revisions?
ANSWER: Yup. Take Nike’s advice: “Just Do It!” Despite the bruised ego, it is worth the effort to revise. You can whip out the “minor revisions” lickety split. You already have conditional acceptance.
However, many professors do not make the “major revisions” because they become very discouraged. Fight that urge to give up if the editor gives you the opportunity to revise and resubmit. Your career in academia could hang in the balance. No pressure to revise, huh?
WHAT’S YOUR QUITING QUOTIENT?
What’s your “Quiting Quotient” or QQ? What does it take in the form of reviewers’ comments to bring you to your knees? Certainly, after pouring your mind, heart, and soul into a major work, whether it’s a research article, review, essay, or another work of significance to you, the comments you receive can be painful. However, you need to raise your QQ, get up from your knees, and KEEP MOVING FORWARD. We’ve all been there and we’re still writing, submitting, getting rejected, revising, resubmitting, and revising; along that path we’re receiving acceptance e-mails for our contributions.
Does revision improve your chances of publication? What do you do if the editor asks for more changes and another revision? Those issues will be addressed in my next blog.
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
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
A PRE-EMPTIVE “NONOFFENSIVE” STRIKE
How do you roll out acceptable standards in your classroom or workplace to minimize the chances of anyone getting offended? What steps do YOU need to take? Here are a few steps to consider:
3 STEPS:
1. Careful Review---Carefully review your humor, music, videos, or any other form of media you plan on using. If you have any reservations about their appropriateness, DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!
2. Peer Review---Pick 2 or 3 colleagues to review your material regularly before you use it, especially if you have any doubts. A fresh perspective or 3 can be eyeball opening to what you didn't see in your review.
3. Setting the Standards---On the 1st class of the semester OR other appropriate time with co-workers,
a. set standards for offensive material with everyone involved. You propose and define the categories and adjust accordingly based on their feedback. Make sure everyone is clear on what is appropriate and inappropriate material---where the LINE IS DRAWN, and
b. issue a disclaimer to all students OR employees regarding your own behavior to hold you accountable to those standards, such as
“Should I ever offend anyone with anything I say or do, or any print material, music, or videos offend you, please know it wasn’t intended. I may make mistakes. Tell me about any material that offends you so I can change it before the next class or semester.”
This 3b disclaimer is extremely important. We rarely hear that anywhere. Instead, to the contrary, we hear performers and, possibly, even our colleagues and friends tell us they don’t care who they offend. They often do that with great pride, puffing themselves up, as if offending people intentionally and having no respect for another person’s values or principles is a badge of honor. That should not be your position in the classroom or workplace.
If the preceding steps are taken regularly, you should be able to minimize offensive jokes and media from rearing their ugliness in your workplace and, more importantly, minimize the chances of hurting the people with whom you work every day. At least, when you do make mistakes, and you will, you’ll be prepared to handle them appropriately.
Well, that’s the end of my offensive blog series. Can you believe it? I know you couldn't wait for my anti-climatic, predictable finale. I hope at least one idea hit you that was of value to think about in your teaching or position in the workplace. Let me know your thoughts.
COPYRIGHT © 2010 Ronald A. Berk, LLC
