We all know that the rise of electronic publishing has transformed academic journals. But academics haven’t focused much attention on the emergence of online submission systems, which have also served to transform academic publishing in subtle ways.
On the positive side, they have made managing manuscripts far easier. In fact, I’m amazed anything got published at all in the Olden Days (circa 1995), given the complicated logistics of managing the review process. Likewise, online submission systems have also made the review process more transparent. I don’t necessarily mean in a literal sense — most reviews are still single- or double-blinded (that’s another debate altogether) — but in a procedural sense.
In a recent Vitae post, Karen Kelsky tackled the subject of whether you should try your luck with another journal if you receive a revise-and-resubmit decision. In general, I thought her advice was spot on, but I’d like to flesh things out a bit further, posting a few caveats and giving readers a behind-the-scenes view.
In my last article, I provided a handful of obvious tips for junior scholars on getting journal articles published. My aim wasn’t to provide a comprehensive guide to publication, but instead to highlight common (and easily rectified) issues that I see regularly as an associate editor of an academic journal. But there’s more to say. So as a follow-up, I thought I’d offer a few random reflections informed by my work as an editor and my experiences as an author.
The Really Obvious (but All-Too-Often-Ignored) Guide to Getting Published
June 14, 2014
(published on Chronicle Vitae blog)
Anyone who has ever submitted a manuscript to an academic journal will likely have had some opportunity to reflect on the capricious nature of the peer-review process. Attempting to publish is, at best, a frustrating experience. At worst, it seems that banging one’s head against a brick wall would be more fun.