Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week X

Several months ago I wrote a series of blog posts on preparing an article for publication. I followed Wendy Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success.  The book structures the revision process and explains how to prepare an already written paper for journal submission. I followed its steps. Each week I read a corresponding chapter and performed assigned tasks, and, after 12 weeks of revision, I submitted my paper to a journal. Three weeks ago I heard back from the editor and returned to Belcher’s last chapter, titled “Week X,” which deals with responding to journal decisions.

First, I read through the “theoretical” part of the chapter, where Belcher discusses the emotional side of waiting for the journal’s decision and reading it. She recommends to avoid “opening the letter if you are just about to teach or enter a meeting” (p. 290). According to her, authors need to allow themselves the time and space for the emotional journey of reading and responding to the journal’s decision.  Belcher acknowledges that reviewers’ comments frequently are problematic and of poor quality. “At the same time, studies have repeatedly shown that peer review improved the quality of articles, especially in the discussion of the study’s limitations, the generalization of the findings, the tone of the conclusion, and general readability” (p. 291).

Then, Belcher describes different types of journal decisions, including various forms of editorial acceptance and rejection.  She explains that pure accept is extremely rare and almost never happens. The next best thing is revise minor problems and resubmit.  According to Belcher, 

You can only get this kind of decision if all the peer reviewers and the editors like your article. The journal has taken your article seriously, given you a few recommendations for improvement, and asked you to resubmit the article once you have revised it accordingly, Therefore, your chance of publication are now very high. So, if you have received such a decision, drop everything, make the revisions, and resubmit it. (p. 292)

Revise major problems and resubmit is also a good decision to receive.

You usually get this kind of decision when the reviewers and editors liked the piece but at least one had substantial suggestions for improvement. Sometimes you will get this decision even if one of the reviewers had major reservations, but only if the editors did not agree that the identified problems were serious or difficult to fix. (p. 293)

At the same Belcher points out that, unlike revise minor problems and resubmit, a revise-major-problems-and-resubmit decision often takes the revised article back to the original reviewers for vetting. And as a result, the publication process is likely to take longer.

Belcher also describes different forms of editorial rejection, such as rejected but will entertain a resubmit, rejected and dismissed, and rejected by editor. The latter means that the article never went through the peer-review process; the editor made the decision alone. Such a rejection may have to do with the article’s quality or with the circumstances that have nothing to do with in it. For example, “the editors may have accepted too many articles on your topic, period, theory, population, country, etc.” (p. 297). The main problem with this type of decision is a lack of feedback, which complicates future revisions. Last year I received this type of rejection, but my experience was slightly different from the one described by Belcher. My rejected-by-editor decision came with the editor’s constructive feedback. In fact, his comments were more helpful than those that I previously received from reviewers for a different article.

Then, Belcher describes 6 steps that need to be taken to respond to the journal’s decision. The first one is reading the workbook, which I did on the next day after receiving the decision. The second step is evaluating and responding to the journal decision. Belcher recommends to read the review and put it away for several days, since what appears shocking at first may seem more manageable in a few days. Following her advice, I read the review and put it aside for couple of days. This cool-off period gave me time to digest the comments and to think about possible ways of addressing them. Then, Belcher suggests to “make sure you are clear on what decision you have received” because editors’ decisions are not always explicitly worded, but responding to the decision depends on the nature of that decision (p. 299). I was confident that the decision I received was revise minor problems and resubmit. It said, “The reviews are in general favourable and suggest that, subject to minor revisions, your paper could be suitable for publication.” At the same time, I had no idea how common this type of wording (“could be suitable for publication”) is and what exactly it means.

The third step is planning the revision. Belcher warns against putting the revision off until you have more time and suggests, within 2 weeks of receiving the decision, to “open the article, reread it, and make at least one change to the article” (p. 304), aiming to send the revised article back to the journal within a month or two. Since the journal gave me only a month, I started making changes earlier, on the 4^th day after receiving the decision. The comments I received were clear, so I did not need to contact the editor for clarification and moved directly to drafting a revision cover letter, which is usually submitted along with the revised article. Such a letter explains how the reviewers’ comments were addressed.  According to Belcher, starting this letter early on in a revision process allows to keep track of what exactly the reviewers want to be changed. I analyzed the comments and divided them into 5 categories. Then, I started drafting my revision cover letter.

The fourth step is revising the article. Belcher argues that “the biggest mistake authors make when asked to revise and resubmit an article is planning to do too much in response to the reviewers’ recommendations” (p. 306). I followed her suggestion to start off by making the smallest possible changes to solve the largest objections. I felt that the editor was concerned about the absence of the exact year when my interviews were conducted, as well as the pertinence of my findings to the contemporary situation. Before submitting my paper for peer review, I took off all personal identifying information, including the citation of my Master’s Thesis, which was the original source of the data. That’s how the date of the project got missing from the article. This was an easy thing to fix, and I started my revision with that change. My next move was to figure out how to demonstrate that my findings are still relevant. I decided to analyze the media’s use of the concept which I explore in my paper and compare it to the interviewees’ accounts. As I expected, there were lots of similarities, which indirectly proved the relevance of my study’s findings. Then, I worked on the other areas identified in my revision cover letter. When I finished with all of them, I sought peer feedback on my revised article.

The fifth task was to draft my revision cover letter, which I started earlier and finished after all necessary revisions were completed. As Belcher suggested, I arranged this letter as a series of bullet points with the reviewers’ critiques grouped by category followed by the alterations I made to solve the problem. The sixth task was requesting permissions, but I didn’t need any of them. So instead, I checked everything one more time and resubmitted my article. At that point, it was two and half weeks since I received the editor’s decision. I have no idea how soon I will hear the final decision. Until then, I’m keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for the best.

Social polarization and communication

In recent years, social polarization has become a prominent and frequently discussed feature of American life. My recent trip to Russia and the polarization I observed there made me think of social polarization as a global phenomenon whose roots and solutions are tied to communication

Polarization in Russia is certainly not something new.  In early 2012, on the brink of the Russian Presidential Elections, an acquaintance of mine traveled from the U.S. to Russia to participate in protests at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow against Putin’s candidacy. Although he hadn’t seen his elderly father for some time, his mom suggested not to visit him to avoid inevitable confrontation. The political divide between the father, who was a strong Putin’s supporter, and the son, who came to Russia to protest against him becoming President, was so deep and unbreachable that the mother thought it would be better if they stayed away from each other. For years, Putin’s personality and his politics have been one of the most divisive issues in Russia. But after Crimea’s events of the 2014, the situation has become even more complicated. Although public opinion polls indicate high approval of Putin, during my January’s visit to Moscow, I repeatedly heard Putin’s opponents questioning the legitimacy of these numbers.  Also people strongly disagree on what has been happening in Ukraine. Some argue that the annexation of Crimea has triggered the war, which would’ve not happened otherwise, while others insist that the violence was unavoidable and that it would’ve taken place in Crimea if the peninsula remained a part of Ukraine. Both sides cite pundits’ opinions and discuss first-hand accounts of Crimeanians. There is also disagreement on the causes of the current crisis in the country and on the appropriateness of the steps taken by the government. While some believe that the Russian government has been doing everything possible in this difficult situation to protect the country and its people from the cynical and self-serving West that wants to weaken and dominate Russia, others feel that freedom in the country has been dwindling and that Stalin's style repressions are coming. But when I asked for specific examples of the reduced freedom, many struggled to come up with anything substantial to illustrate these claims. I’m certain, if we talked a week or two ago, they would’ve mentioned the recent assassination of Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov, which many blame on Putin’s regime. But once again, there is no agreement. On the popular talk show “Воскресный вечер с Владимиром Cоловьевым,” which brings together politicians, pundits, and intellectuals with different points of view, guests were sharply divided: one group argued that Putin is directly responsible for Nemtsov’s death, and the other group insisted that Putin’s circle had nothing to gain from this death and that the assassination had been orchestrated by the outside forces that want to destabilize Russia.

Another media example of social polarization in Russia is “КсенияСобчак и Виктор Баранец: Две правды о войне на Украине.” In this radio program, Kseniya Sobchak and Viktor Baranets talked about the war in Ukraine and its media coverage. Sobchak is a Russian TV journalist, socialite, and member of political opposition. She is also a daughter of the first democratically elected mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak and sometimes is described as "Russia's Paris Hilton." Baranets, on the other hand, is a retired colonel, journalist, and confidant of President Putin. These two people belong to different generations, different genders, different political views, etc. Their communication styles also are very different. During the radio program, Sobchak seemed more assertive and poised than Baranets, who easily lost his cool and became defensive. Their interaction was prompted by Sobchak’s recent criticism of Komsomol’skaya Pravda (the newspaper where Baranets works) and its coverage of the war in Ukraine. The conversation between Sobchak and Baranets was heated. It also was emblematic of the deep social polarization existing in the Russian society. Both sides showed little consideration and respect for the opponent. Each was focused on proving one’s point and presenting the other’s argument as irrational, baseless, and harmful for the country. In other words, Sobchak and Baranets’s  conversation was monological.

Monologue prevails when each speaker perceives his/her own ideas as right, and the opposing ones as wrong (Bakhtin, 1986). Such a conversation becomes a duel of realities. Participants listen only long enough to plan their next line of attack; they are not driven by a genuine interest to understand the opponent. According to Arnett and Anderson (1999), this way of communication is common in a polarized society. Social polarization and monologic communication can be viewed as mutually constitutive; they create conditions for and reinforce each other. Monologic communication dehumanizes the opponent and shifts the focus from respect and understanding to manipulation and control, which results in polarization. At the same time, social polarization erodes common ground between the opponents, makes constructive interaction difficult, and affects the overall climate in society. This interrelation suggests that shifting from monologic communication to dialogic communication may prevent and overcome social polarization.

Bakhtin (1929/1984) juxtaposes monologue to dialogue. According to him, life is intrinsically dialogical; it’s full of different voices, whose ideas and points of view often seem incommensurable. Through dialogue, these voices become richer and clearer; they interilluminate each other and jointly generate new meanings and understandings. Dialogue requires moving toward the other and being open to change that may result from the interaction. Bakhtin, however, views these conditions as intrinsically human. “For Bakhtin as for Buber the person does not dwell within himself but on the boundary; for his self-consciousness is constituted by his relationship to a Thou” (Friedman, 2001, p. 27). But if so, why so often, both in public and private life, are people unable to engage in dialogue? Why are they unable (or unwilling) to offer “a sense of grace to the other—space to live and communicate”—that Arnett and Anderson (1999) view as a corner stone of dialogic civility (p. 286)? I think it happens because oftentimes the others’ right to live and communicate is perceived as infringing on the one’s own rights and beliefs. Should someone whom I view as a homophobe be entitled to free speech? What about racist or sexist expressions? Is there a way to separate the message from the messenger, preserving the humanity of the latter? Any easy and straightforward answer would lead to monologue. The way of dialogue, on the other hand, is “the narrow ridge” with abysses of certainty on either side (Buber, 1907/1995). It’s a difficult path to follow.

References

Arnett, R. C., & Anderson, P. (1999). Dialogic civility in a cynical age. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Ed. & Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1929).

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986b). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.; V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Buber, M. (1995). The legend of the Baal-Shem (M. Friedman, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1907).

Friedman, M. (2001). Martin Buber and Mikhail Bakhtin: The dialogue of voices and the world that is spoken. Religion & Literature, 33(3), 25-36.