My point of departure is my own experiences, both as a writer and editor. In fact, I had my first experiences of the review process as an editor. At the end of my PhD studies, I became involved in the journal Scandia. That meant that already from an early stage, I got a “behind the scenes” perspective. Over time, this has proved valuable.
What I learned from my editorial work was that there are certain things editors truly appreciate from the people submitting texts. This can be summed up as: speedy, specific and no prestige.
Speedy means that the editor wants to see that the authors take immediate action with regard to the proposed measures. This means that the editor can finish the next issue of the journal and move on with his or her own life as an academic. This is in the interest of both the editor and the author. However, it is very common that revisions drag on, sometimes indefinitely. Hence, it is extra pleasing when someone works speedily or at least answers an email and specifies a date when he or she will submit his or her text (and then does so!).
Specific means that the editor likes to hear from the author what he or she has done. No editor wants to print out two texts and compare these with each other to identify what has changed. It may be months since the last time you read the text and reading other people’s manuscripts is not that exhilarating. Hence, editors appreciate authors who submit a list of bullet points of their changes: “1) in line with the suggestion of reviewer 2 to extend the discussion Y, two new paragraphs have been added on page 5. Here, I discuss the book by academic Z as suggested by reviewer 1.” This offers the editors a good basis for making a quick decision. (Hint: quick decisions are often positive).
No prestige means that you as an author seek to communicate with the editors in a calm and friendly fashion. This is particularly important if you are annoyed by the comments made by the reviewers and/or the editors. As an author, it is easy to forget that editorial work, as well as anonymous reviews, represents unpaid and invisible work. It’s a service provided to academics by the scholarly community. Careful, critical readings may feel heavy. In the short term, they also result in additional work. In the longer term, however, the subsequent comments almost always improve the texts. This benefits everyone involved. In particular the authors and their future readers.
A general piece of advice in terms of responding without prestige is to digest the comments before actually responding. In other words, read them one day. Sleep on it. If necessary, discuss the response you want to communicate to the editors with a close colleague. Then you will hopefully answer in a civilized manner. Not sure if the editors actually want to publish your text? Ask straight out if this is the case. Tell them that you’re unsure, but that you may consider making changes X, Y and Z provided that they want such a manuscript.
Another technique, which I have learned from my colleague Martin Ericsson, is to sometimes simply not read the comments. This may be a good idea when you already find yourself in a heavy work period and don’t have the time or energy to sink your teeth into your manuscript. In such a case, quickly reply to the editors and tell them about your situation. Tell them that you will get back to them in a week or two when you have the time to work on this.
This, however, is an exception. The general principle Martin and I use is to always prioritize reviewer comments. The chances of having your work published increase if you interact with the editors in a way that simplifies their work. This is done by working speedily, specifically and without prestige.
---------
Do you want to sign up for the blogs mailing-list? Send an e-mail to david.larsson_heidenblad@hist.lu.se
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.