an editor's trick

Music: Divorce Court

After almost twenty weeks in review, Tom and I finally got word from the editor of a lead journal in my field (rhetorical studies) about our article on alchemy. This word came a few days after I sent the following email to the editor:

Dear _______,

I'm writing in regard to [ms. #], "Catchy Article Title," which Tom Frentz and I originally submitted on 11 September 2006. Although I recognize the holiday period is a busy and frantic time for everyone, Tom and I believe that a decision about what to do with the manuscript is now long overdue.

In my first query to you on 5 September 2006, you said that "turn around time with the electronic system is about six weeks." In the 19 weeks since we submitted the manuscript, with humor and tact, I have contacted you numerous times to inquire about the status of the review. Let me review those moments:

I emailed on 27 November 2006 to ask about the status of that manuscript. I received no response from either you or your assistant.

I emailed again on 6 December 2006 to ask about the manuscript. I received no response.

I emailed a third time on 13 December 2006. In that email I mentioned that "we are deserving the respect of a response," even if that response was not positive. Silence, I mentioned, was unfair to us. Thankfully, you finally responded to this email, and we had a very nice conversation about the review process.

Last week I emailed to inquire about the manuscript, as we're working toward week 20. Neither Tom nor I have heard from you or your editorial assistant.

Although I realize that the transition to the on-line review system, combined with sluggish reviewers (or simply finding them!), is partly to blame, we are starting to believe that the decision to ignore our queries is deliberate.

In your reply in December you mentioned that you have one review in. We respectfully request to see this review, and that you make a swift but fair decision on what to do with our work.

Sincerely,

D(Jx3)

The editor's initial response? Silence! of course. Then another day. Then another day. Finally, a response:

25-Jan-2007

Dear D(Jx3):

At long last, the reviews of your essay, "Something Catchy" (manuscript #_____), follow this letter. Reader 1 is cautiously optimistic and recommends resubmission after major revision. Reviewer 2, in contrast, believes the work require for success constitutes more than revision, and s/he advises against further development for [this journal]. After reading the essay and the critics' comments, I understand both the optimism and reservations they express.

These divided recommendations have posed consistent challenges during my term, though I suspect I would agree with Reader 1 here. That speculation is moot, however, as in the last three weeks I have accepted 4-5 papers for publication. In the process, I have committed all of the space in my final volume.

On February 1, editor-elect ________ begins receiving all new submissions to the journal. One option you may want to consider is to study the readers' comments, re-work the essay, and to submit the paper to _______ as an original manuscript early in [her] tenure.

Regardless of how you proceed, I wish you the best of luck with your project.

Sincerely,

Mostly Silent Editor

How y'all like this trick? Let me paraphrase: "We've had your manuscript for nineteen weeks, but I won't offer you an apology. What I will tell you is that normally I'd offer a revise and resubmit, but I'm full. So sorry! Now go away!"

[In my best Borat accent] Is nice, ya? You like!

N-O-T [take breath] N-I-C-E. Of course, we might have considered sending the piece to the new editor, except for two reasons: the second reviewer who recommended the piece is (a) the new editor; and (b) the same reviewer who sat on the manuscript for nineteen weeks.

And so it goes in the world of pursuing publication for tenure.