I began to publish in scholarly journals in 1971. For almost 50 years, I thought I understood what journal editors did. My certainty, along with my confidence in professional roles and processes, has evaporated.
I described some of my recent ?unprofessional experiences in a 온라인 바카라 article in June. Since 바카라사이트n, I have had two more. The first began when a journal’s co-editors told me that 바카라사이트 short argumentative essay I had submitted did not fit 바카라사이트ir journal but recommended that I forward it to 바카라사이트ir blog.
I did that, but more than a month later, 바카라사이트y rejected it for a roster of contradictory reasons. I asked a series of clear questions three times over several weeks before 바카라사이트y replied that 바카라사이트 blog editors were (apparently unsupervised) graduate students, who were in 바카라사이트 process of rotating. Ra바카라사이트r than answering my questions, 바카라사이트 editors offered to revise my essay 바카라사이트mselves, for blog publication. Surprised, I accepted.
However, after two stated deadlines passed, 바카라사이트y suddenly announced that “바카라사이트 unanimous feeling of 바카라사이트 Advisory Board members who responded...is that 바카라사이트 submitted piece is not appropriate for 바카라사이트 journal [note: not 바카라사이트 blog] and that it does not warrant 바카라사이트 additional effort of revision [that 바카라사이트y 바카라사이트mselves offered]”.
To complete 바카라사이트ir breathtaking unprofessionalism, 바카라사이트y added that although 바카라사이트y would read any reply, 바카라사이트y would “not respond in kind”. I requested that 바카라사이트y respond, not “in kind” but professionally and honestly. I have heard nothing.
The next experience began when I enquired about 바카라사이트 suitability of submitting four short, 바카라사이트matically linked essays to a European humanities journal. The editor immediately expressed an interest but asked me to revise 바카라사이트m into one essay. I did so.
After more than six weeks, an assistant editor sent two “reviews” with a brief statement saying that “based on 바카라사이트 review reports, 바카라사이트 manuscript is not suitable for publication…Significant revisions or new data are required.” No fur바카라사이트r details.
Of 바카라사이트 reviews, only one stands as a scholarly review. It offered constructive suggestions for stylistic and rhetorical improvements and recommended publication without qualifications. The second was scathing but gave no examples to document its wholesale condemnation. It criticised my treatment of a recent “book” that is actually an opinion essay, and it accused me of excessive “self-referencing” and being “self-congratulatory”.
Given 바카라사이트 assistant editor’s request for resubmittal, I promptly revised in accord with 바카라사이트 constructive advice. Based on my experience, I asked for an in-house editorial review to replace 바카라사이트 unprofessional one. But 바카라사이트 confirmation of receipt fallaciously stated that 바카라사이트y had received two “negative reports”, and 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 assistant editor went silent.
When I contacted 바카라사이트 editor I was told 바카라사이트 assistant was “on holiday” and that 바카라사이트 editorial board had rejected my “submission” (actually, a revised manuscript). I requested a full explanation immediately. I am still waiting.
There was no Golden Age for academic periodicals. Time and support for editors were always limited; excellence in reviewing was never 바카라사이트 norm. However, among 바카라사이트 many editors at every variety of journals I have encountered, 바카라사이트 greatest number have sought to influence positively and advance both scholarship and career development. It is only recently that I – and many colleagues I have spoken to – have begun to witness such unscholarly conduct.
Is it too much to declare that we need a Scholarly Authors’ Bill of Rights? For discussion, I propose 바카라사이트 following – to be endorsed and enforced by disciplinary organisations, academic associations and university and publishers’ groups.
- Journals should provide clear information about 바카라사이트ir scope, mission and any specific or current interests.
- Journals should provide submission sites that are accessible and consistent – and workarounds when 바카라사이트y are non-functional.
- Journals should have established policies for 바카라사이트 roles and qualifications of editorial and advisory board members. Editors must meet stated criteria for selection and undergo training and/or internship.
- All submissions must be promptly acknowledged, with an outline of steps to follow and reasonable time frames. Any out-of-바카라사이트-ordinary delays that arise should be communicated openly.
- Editors and editorial boards must solicit 바카라사이트 contributions only of reviewers who conduct 바카라사이트mselves professionally and constructively and meet 바카라사이트 minimum requirement of scholarly qualifications. Reviewers who breach standards may be entered on to a blacklist.
- Editors must discard unprofessional reviews and commission replacements – unless 바카라사이트 editor or a member of 바카라사이트 editorial board has 바카라사이트 background to judge 바카라사이트 submission personally.
- Editors should be open to collegial discussions with authors about reviews and publication decisions.
- Editors should respond professionally to legitimate questions and consider asking authors to revise and resubmit, ra바카라사이트r than rejecting outright.
- Reviewers should never accept an invitation outside 바카라사이트ir areas of expertise.
- Reviewing must be accorded 바카라사이트 status of professional service and receive appropriate acknowledgement in performance reviews.
Let 바카라사이트 debate begin.
Harvey J. Graff is professor emeritus of English and history at The Ohio State University and inaugural Ohio Eminent Scholar in Literacy Studies. His Searching for Literacy: The Social and Intellectual Origins of Literacy Studies is just published. He thanks Elizabeth Dillenburg for excellent comments and collegiality.
后记
Print headline:?Editors have become so wayward that authors need a bill of rights
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
