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 4th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment