8 April 2014

Reasons for Rejection (Part II)

Apologies for the delay in posting - and for the relative brevity in this post - it's been a busy few weeks. I've had some interesting discussions from my last post; it's been great to hear from other editors and administrators with regard to what they find to be the most common reasons for rejection.

That being said, I'd just like to reiterate that these are simply from my experience and viewpoint, as well as discussions with our publisher from a previous event.

So, without further ado, some more things to think about:

7. Your paper has a very poor theoretical framework, including references to relevant literature.

There’s a thing that most referees and reviewers do when they pick up a new article or book – they flip straight to the bibliography and see what the sources are. If any of the major works are missing, there are audible grumbles. It’s like trying to explain the Mr Men and omitting Mr Happy. It just doesn’t help you.

Your paper should, ideally, place itself within the framework of the literature pretty quickly. This is the so what, who cares? question that you need to be addressing. A journal article is much shorter than a dissertation, thesis, and monograph; therefore, you need to include the relevant literature and build the framework quickly. Don’t dither and leave it to page 8 or you will have lost not only the administrator, but also the editor and any potential referees. Papers where the reader has to do a lot of work are hard to get reviewed so suffer from the things I discuss in this post.

Reviewers will suggest important works that may have been omitted for whatever reason. The point is, pay attention to the pivotal relevant literature. Don’t add references just because, but make sure you are engaging with the existing field.

Publications are part of the ongoing scholarly discussion of academia. Like any discussion worth having, you can’t just say what you want to say in total isolation. It must link to what has already been said and what is likely to be said in the future.

6. You haven’t contextualised your paper and considered your audience.

Just to reiterate a mantra: each journal is different. This includes each journal having a different audience. Some journals are aimed at academics; some are aimed at practitioners. Some are even aimed at postgraduate students, and some are aimed at industry. Know which audience the journal you are submitting to addresses. This is the why are you telling me? part. Don’t submit a paper aimed at academic theorists to a practitioner-targeted journal unless you make an exceptionally well contextualised argument. Even then, the editor is likely to reject your paper and suggest you submit to an academic theory-based journal.

Editors have to look for papers that their readership will not only be interested in reading but also likely to engage with and cite in further papers. Your best chance of success is to be what the editor is looking for.

5. Your paper doesn’t add to the discussion or states the obvious at tedious length

A somewhat obvious biggie. By this, I simply mean you haven’t said anything new; you haven’t added your voice to the scholarly discussion. And yes, even literature reviews must add something new. Don’t submit the worst kind of “literature review” – one that is simply a glorified listing of relevant literature with no analysis. The analysis is the new, and essential, part.

Sometimes though, regardless of whether or not something new is stated, papers are tedious and do nothing but state the obvious. It’s very, very difficult to get a reviewer to look at an exceptionally long paper, especially if it can be summed up in a much shorter paper. To be honest, I’ve seen submissions where I’ve read a few pages and in the back of my mind all I can hear is “Round and round she goes, and where she stops nobody knows” (That’s a line from The Original Amateur Hour for you kiddies out there). 


And that's all for now, folks. I'll have to add the next post when I get a chance. Maybe the Spring/Easter break will afford some time. Maybe not. 

As always, questions/queries/comments/suggestions are always welcome either via Twitter, Email, or below.

-theAdmin 

No comments:

Post a Comment