 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
© 2003 European Consortium for Political Research
 |
|
|
| keith dowding |
||
| Part one made suggestions about doing market research on where to publish, and described the review process. We start Part two with the most obvious next stage: rejection. REJECTIONSo you have sent your paper off and wait expectantly for a letter from the editor. Good journals usually send a note – by email mostly these days – acknowledging receipt. Many of the lesser journals do not. How long do you have to wait before you get an email or letter stating whether or not you have been accepted? It can be anything from two weeks to two years, but expect a wait of around three to four months. Two weeks is almost certainly a rejection without it being sent to referees. Three to four months is actually pretty good for a top journal. Why does it take so long? The internal review will take a couple of weeks, and then you must expect referees to take up to two months (editors generally ask referees to take no longer than a month but...). Sometimes referees do not respond at all, or hold on to a script for months and then say they can’t do it, so the whole process has to start again. There is a serious problem of sunk costs (or ‘sunk time’) for editors with dilatory referees. Does one hang on and wait for X who has repeatedly promised to do the review, or send out to Y who may be no better? Given the restricted list of potential referees (one cannot ask the same person more than a couple of times a year) the temptation is usually to hang on; hence the long delays in giving authors your decision. An editor may even occasionally decide that a referee’s report is so sloppy that they can’t send it to an author and so must commission another, one but generally editors work with what they have got. Good editors will also take some time over their decision, and write a helpful letter to the author. [1] There are three types of response from editors to authors. Publish, reject, and ‘revise-and-resubmit’. The latter usually comes in at least two categories. Minor changes that the editor may check themselves or send out to perhaps one referee again, and major revision entailing a complete resubmission and refereeing process. I write more about this below. Some editors require all referees finally to support publication before they will accept. That was once the case with the American Political Science Review (but the new editor has a new policy: see his editorial (Sigelman, 2002: x)) and seems to be the case with the American Journal of Political Science. Other editors require a majority eventually to support but will override one rejection advice. However, it is vital that you do all you can to satisfy any referee who suggests rejection, and to answer any criticism either in your article, or in the covering letter to the editor (see below). What do you do on receipt of the decision? If it is ‘publish’ then go out and celebrate. But, to be honest, that is unlikely for your first article especially if you have sent it to a top journal. Whilst I have been one of the editors of The Journal of Theoretical Politics we have not accepted a single paper on first submission. We either reject them or revise-and-resubmit them (the exception may be a few ‘notes’ or ‘replies’ we have published). Many revise-and-resubmits are minor, but often they are major, and some articles have gone through two major revise-and-resubmits (that’s three versions), and even then we have asked for minor changes before the final piece has been published. When you get a major ‘revise-and-resubmit’, the first thing to do is to put the letter and your paper in a drawer for a few days. You are likely to be a bit upset about some of the criticisms, and may believe the referees are wrong and possibly stupid. Don’t take that attitude. The best thing to do is to follow their advice very carefully, even if it means a major rewrite, or even collection of new data, more interviews, more fieldwork. If you believe they have misunderstood your argument, don’t blame them – blame yourself for not expressing your ideas well enough[2]. Try to do everything asked of you by the referee and the editor. (A good editor will go through all the points made by the referees, and tell you which points are the key ones for you respond to, which are minor ones he would like you to deal with, and which ones you can, perhaps, ignore). When you resubmit your article write a covering letter to the editor. Don’t worry if this letter turns out very long. If you find you can’t do certain things asked of you – perhaps you disagree too fundamentally with the theoretical objection, or the data asked for simply aren’t available or are too expensive to collect – then explain in your covering letter. State in the letter everything you have changed and everything you have not, explaining clearly why you have not done everything asked of you. You may say that you have reduced the scope of your claims because of the problems, or have inserted an argument against the point made – or you may simply set out the reasons why you have not changed the offending paragraph at all. But it is vitally important that you do most if not everything asked of you. How quickly should you resubmit? As fast as possible, though if you’ve been asked to do a lot it may take you months or even years. But don’t do it too quickly. There is little point resubmitting the piece with hardly any changes on a major revise and resubmit. Editors and reviewers are not stupid (on the whole) and will compare the revised piece with the original one. If you’ve been asked to reduce the paper by a given amount, reduce it by at least that amount. [3] What do you do with a rejection letter? Same thing! Only this time you resubmit the article to a different journal. Make sure you redraft the article to the style of the new journal. And don’t think that you do not need to take note of the referees’ comments if you resubmit to a new journal. They may use the same referees! I have certainly been sent the same article up to three times by different journals. If I can see it has not changed from the first time I reviewed it I simply give it the same review. If the author can’t be bothered to follow my advice, I certainly can’t be bothered to offer new advice. (As a referee you should always tell the editor that you have seen this piece before). If your article is rejected, don’t bother writing to the editor complaining about the decision or the referee. The editor is exceedingly unlikely to take any notice. All it does is relieve your own frustration and you may as well do that by complaining to your friends about your ill treatment[4]. Be professional. You’ve been rejected, so you rewrite. EVERYONE who publishes in the top refereed journals has had rejection letters. That’s why you should not put all your energy into one piece. Expect rejection. Expect revise-and-resubmit. Send your articles to the top journals first, but prior to sending off be planning which journal to submit to next time round. DEVELOPING A PUBLISHING PROFILEMost of the advice offered so far has been directed at getting your first piece published. But what should that piece be? And after that how do you develop a good publishing profile? There are two different strategies to adopt. The first is a high-risk strategy. Spend a long time writing your first article to be directed at the top journal in your field. It is generally believed that publishing an article in American Political Science Review or Philosophy and Public Affairs will get you a tenure-track job in the US. In economics it is even more important to hit the top journals to get jobs in the best departments. But if you put all your energies into one article and it is rejected, you have to start again. So a second strategy is to try to get some pieces in lesser journals. You should certainly also try to write some book reviews. Not all journals publish book reviews, but some of the major ones do. The American Political Science Review publishes reviews of around 500 words, whilst in Britain, Political Studies has carried regular book notes of 300 words that are now being carried in the new journal, Political Studies Review. These are published quickly online. Book review editors are often stuck for ideas on who to ask to write reviews. Check the name of the book review editor (usually someone different from the main editor) and drop them an email giving your name, institutional address and three or four research areas in which you feel capable of reviewing books. Remember that if you get a book you will have to review it! Do not suggest more than four at most, and do not make them too specialised. It is also sometimes worth emailing a book review editor offering to review a specific book that is just about to come out. (Publishers usually send out review copies at least a month before the book is published). You may also want to write some short pieces, commenting on debates in the literature. Some journals also take research notes, which can be a little more speculative or less ‘complete’, and they are generally refereed by only one or two people. It is worthwhile contacting the editors to see if they are interested in these sorts of articles prior to writing; and it is easier to get acceptance. Though generally do not contact editors prior to submission. These two strategies are not incompatible. You can spend time on your main piece for one of the top journals, whilst reviewing a few books, and producing less ambitious articles or research notes for other journals. It is a good idea to send what you think is your best work to a top journal simply for the referees’ reports. Do not expect acceptance, anticipate rejection but with advice for improvement so you can then send it to a lower-tier journal. The advice you get first time round will increase your chances of getting it published eventually. Early in your career, a one in three hit rate is very good, and it is perfectly respectable for an established academic. If you present at conferences then you may be asked to contribute to an edited book. There are not so many these days as publishers are running shy. Also, it is not a good idea to publish your best work in an edited book. Your publishing profile does not look so good to the discerning eye if you have several articles in edited books but nothing in refereed journals. [5] One reason why you should try to publish in lesser journals as well as the top journals early in your career is the length of time it takes for your piece to appear in print. From submission to acceptance can take from four months to two years (remember it is possible to have one or even two revise-and-resubmits, and you could wait six months for the initial decision). Then, from final acceptance to publication may take six months to two years or more. Most editors like to have accepted copy for the following twelve months. Publishers generally want the final copy from the editor four months prior to publication. So, for a fully refereed quarterly journal an editor will have one issue in press, another being prepared for the publisher. An editor does not want to scrabble around for copy in the months before it is due to be sent to the publisher, as that means commissioning pieces and compromising the refereeing process. If an editor has two subsequent issues filled or nearly filled they can relax. Sometimes you may submit a piece and get a letter back by return of post stating that the editor is not accepting articles on that topic at present. The editor may have too much copy, and have filled issues for the coming 24 not 12 months. Authors, and so editors, do not like too long a wait. Given that your piece may already have been rejected by one or two other journals, the process may easily take three or more years. This is why it is not too early to submit your first articles for publication at the end or your first year, or early in your second year of your doctoral studies. (Though you should note here that the entry, ‘accepted for publication’, against an article on your CV is as good as a publication date for prospective employers. The entry ‘under review’, or better still, ‘under review (revise-and-resubmit)’, against a few articles also enhances the CV, as it shows you are research-active, especially if you also have a couple of accepted or published articles. But don’t have too many ‘under review’ articles on your CV: it may look as though you are getting loads of rejections and are simply sending them off again). When you are more established as an academic and are trying to build up a publication portfolio, ensure you plan ahead. Ideally, at any point in time you will have several articles accepted for publication, several out for review, a couple waiting for revision on revise-and-resubmit or rejection, plus those you are working on for conferences, seminars and to send out for the first time. This means you always have several pieces of work on the go at the same time[6]. This ensures you do not spend too long on any project, and that you don’t invest all your energies in a single project that may not come to fruition. Plan your year ahead to ensure that this happy state of affairs exists. Have an idea of when you are expecting to send out articles, and be in a position to start something new as soon as they are out. This means – if you are an empirical researcher – that you are collecting evidence for your next articles before you have sent out the ones you are working on now. If you are a political philosopher you should be reading for your next project before you have finished the one you are currently involved in. Again, I reiterate that you should concentrate on finishing your doctorate. That does not mean that you cannot be thinking of what you will be working on ‘post doctorate’. You should also have ‘major’ projects and minor ones. It is good to take a break from your major projects to work on the minor ones now and then. It keeps you fresh. You should also try to collaborate with fellow doctoral students or colleagues. The days of the lone ranger political scientist are over[7]. It is best to pool your skills and your knowledge. You may have an idea gleaned from reading in one area that may be applicable elsewhere and collaborating with a specialist allows you more easily to transfer the idea. Working with others is also good since it means there is at least one other person as obsessed with the topic as you and so progress can be swift. You should also remember that political science and philosophy is now a mature subject, and all you are ever going to do is to add to the body of knowledge already there. Only the ignorant now think they can have a whole new original theory of some aspect of politics. [8] Do not assume that publication will change anything. Do not expect to sit back and receive plaudits. It is very sobering to use the citation index to see how often one’s work is cited. Readership may be greater than citations, but not many people will actually read your paper and most of those that do will only skim it. I honestly believe that the only way to make a mark on the profession is to publish everything you have to say three times – in modified forms – in different forums[9]. One should also remember the advice that Brian Barry gave to me when I complained that X had taken no notice of my criticisms despite admitting he had no answer to them. Brian pointed out that one rarely convinces one’s peers, and certainly not academics older than you. ‘The battle is for the doctoral students. If they cite you and not your opponents, you’ve won. If they cite your opponents and not you, they’ve won.’ Publication may be a long battle, but changing the nature of the academy is the war. A FEW WORDS ABOUT PUBLISHING YOUR DOCTORATEWhen you are writing your doctorate you should already be thinking about it either as a series of papers, or as a book. If you want to publish it as a book remember that publishers don’t like publishing doctorates. Doctoral theses are worthy, well researched and designed to demonstrate to examiners that the candidate knows all about the subject. This tends to make them narrow, long-winded and boring. When approaching publishers, if you admit that your idea is your doctorate, tell them that you want completely to rewrite and restructure it for publication. That is what they will want, and your saying it in advance will convince them that you know what you are about. Do not send a copy unless they ask for it. Write a covering letter, a short description of the argument and a chapter structure (with a paragraph about each chapter) which covers no more than three or four pages. If the publisher wants more they will ask for it. Longer initial approaches will not be read. The publisher will have neither the time nor the inclination. A better idea might be to plan a different piece of work around some of the themes of the doctorate rather than a rewrite itself. Or cut the whole thing up into little pieces for publication as articles. FINALLYDo not be discouraged by rejections or revise-and-resubmits. They are as much a part of the writing process as thinking, collecting evidence, sitting at your computer typing, and asking friends and colleagues to comment on your work. Treat them as such. notes:
|
