A recent experience points to the fact that the majority may not. I submitted an article to a journal published by one of the major publishers. Few days ago, I received a rejection letter. Unfortunately, the journal uses one peer-reviewer (based on the comments I received). When I went through the reviewer's comment, it was obvious he/she did not read the paper thoroughly (I felt he/she partly read the work based on what was pointed out). For example, my discussion covered 10 pages (the paper is a conceptual article) but the reviewer condemned the paper stating that the discussion was only three pages 'thus, was too short'. Other similar comments pointed to the fact that he/she did not read the paper or was not knowledgeable on the topic. For example, I used the president of my country as an example, but the reviewer mentioned that I did not cite a prominent figure in the paper. (Who can be more prominent than the president of a country?) I wrote the editor a letter pointing at least four reasons why I felt I did not receive a fair review only to be turned down in a way that is very inhumane.
No problem Emeka. The debate around blind review lives on but that is, perhaps, another story.
Good luck with your future studies and publications
Emeka,
It's not always 'clear-cut' as to what your experiences will be with a single journal. It depends on many factors. On the whole, I would like to think that editors are encouraging of early career researchers - but they don't usually know that you are in that stage of your career development. They rely on reviewers to do a good job - and give appropriate feedback. I agree that having feedback from one reviewer alone is not ideal - but sometimes that happens (i.e other reviewers fail to reply) and then an editor has to work with what they have. If the journal is a popular one, that has a good reputation and impact factor etc - and lots of submissions to choose from - then a manuscript like yours may be 'easier to reject' - simply because the environment is highly competitive. My advice is not to take these things personally - but to channel your energy into re-working your study and submitting elsewhere.
Please is it factual that editors do not read authors' profile? Many social science journals require a brief bio to be submitted with each article. I want to know if editors do not read it.
Hi Emeka,
I personally do not know of any social science journals that request a personal bio - unless you mean qualifications and institution. Those details, anyway, (with blind review) are not passed onto the reviewers - so it doesn't really figure in the process. There may be an aspect of what you are talking about in some circumstances. For instance, with some journals, the editor is the 'front-line' initial reviewer who decides if it goes out to other reviewers. If it is not a good study, an average study or not appropriate for the journal, then the editor may well look to your personal details to confirm your 'early career status' - and that adds to their decision to reject. However, if 'a good study is a good study', then it should not matter what the personal profile of the author is.
Thanks Dean. I am sorry this is personal. Some of my published papers have short bio and some journals such as Substance Use and Misuse even include authors' pictures.
On the main issue, do you think some editors do not respect ''big names'' in each field? Is every peer review fair? I am really bothered because another experience made me to ask this initial question. A reviewer asked why I used a theory that was originally used in the USA to explore a Nigerian phenomenon. The editor rejected the article based on this. I reformatted the reference and sent it out to another journal that did proper review and published it. When this second issue happened, I took it up with the editor and pointed out the earlier incident but the editor did not bother to consider the points I raised. So I am wondering if some of them are fair to earlier career researchers.
Hi Emeka,
Not a problem. I can't comment too much on the basis of individual experiences that you have had with certain editors. However, I can appreciate that many editors (for a variety of reasons i.e it's a voluntary role, they are experienced in their field, they should know the scope of their journal - they may not like to be challenged) might reject your paper and move onto the next one. If they have plenty of copy then it's an easier choice to dismiss your response (especially it they know your 'emerging status'). Part of the experience of authorship is to learn some 'tricks' - even if they may not feel natural. One of them is 'to dance gracefully with editors' - you never know when you might want to use them again - and they are just humans at the end of the day.
You are right. I have learnt the issue of ''dancing gracefully'' with them. One thing that I feel may help to ensure fair play in the politics of peer reviewing is to remove blind review. I know it will be difficult, but such is already in place in some sciences. It will be good for authors to know who reviewed their papers. This will help to ensure fair play. Thanks for your helpful comments
No problem Emeka. The debate around blind review lives on but that is, perhaps, another story.
Good luck with your future studies and publications
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher