publishing: even newer irritations about bailing reviewers

Music: Sunshine (Music From the Motion Picture) (2008)

Since Rosechron has gone serial, I might as well continue the narrative of the manuscript I have in review at the moment. As I detailed in late June, I have had a piece in review for a very long time: at a previous journal, it took a year to get reviews back, but then the editor stepped-down, so I pulled it. At the new outlet, I inquired after thirteen weeks "where we are in the process." The editorial assistant's response was unintentionally insulting, which inspired a blog post about the responsibilities of timely blind reviewing.

A few days ago I thought I'd inquire again:

From: Joshua Gunn [slewfoot@mail.utexas.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 12:48 PM
To: Editorial Assistant
Cc: Editor
Subject: RE: Journal Title

Dear ___________,

I submitted my manuscript, "________________" twenty weeks ago today. I'm writing to ask, again, where we are in the process of review. You'll recall I inquired about six weeks ago.

Sincerely,

Josh

Instead of hearing back from the assistant, however, the editor (whom I cc'd) responded almost immediately with a kind message:

<

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:17:29 -0400
From: Editor
Subject: Journal Title
To: Joshua Gunn , Editorial

Dear Josh,

I'm so sorry for the delay with your manuscript. One review has been completed. The other referee notified me early in the summer that s/he would be unable to complete the review. As I'm sure you can understand, summer can be a difficult time to secure reviews, and my invitation to review your piece has only recently been accepted by a second referee. I would like your manuscript to benefit from two reviews, and thus I hope that you will be able to wait a while longer.

I appreciate your patience and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.

best,

Editor

This is exactly how editors should respond to author-queries: it is kind in tone, begins with an apology, and explains the reason for the delay. If only all editors would respond (if at all) to authors in such a professional way, the academic world would be a happier place.

That said, two questions come to mind: (1) why is it that bailing on reviews is such a common practice (at least in my experience), and are these absentees ever punished or called on the carpet for this? and (2) at what point does an editor need to step in an simply make a call?

Of course, I'm hoping Mary is lurking and might offer some perspective here regarding both questions. Regarding both: in my experience bailing reviewers is common. For example, my and Tom's essay on Fight Club, recently published in the Western Journal of Communication, had two rounds of reviews at a previous journal. At that journal, a reviewer delayed and then bailed in the first round; and then, in the second round yet another reviewer bailed or simply failed to produce a review; it was about eight months. Tom and I pulled the essay. It was our belief that the editor should have simply read the review she had in hand and made the call herself. I'm of the mind, in general, that an editor who cannot make a call after six months---certainly a year---of reviewing is a weak editor.

I don't quite know why reviewers bail on reviews. Laziness comes to mind most readily, but I suspect unexpected accidents, family issues, and so forth play a big part. When I was at LSU, I had a piece fail to finish the review process because the editor had a "nervous breakdown." (This happens more than folks think; I can think of two other editors off the cuff who also had breakdowns.)

Perhaps a more generous speculation is that bailing reviewers are concerned about fairness: insofar as my writerly "voice" is recognizable, it could be that after a reviewer gets into the middle of the piece she figures out my identity and decides it's difficult to pretend blindness and then begs off. I've had this happen before myself---even as recently as two weeks ago. I got in the middle of the review and realized I knew the author (who is a cherished friend). The way I handled this situation, however, is perhaps not typical---but it is what I usually do: I completed the review, and then sent it to the editor and said, "I know who the author is, but I think I was fair in my review; I will not be troubled if you decide to seek a replacement for me, however." My reason for doing this is quite simple: rhetorical studies---well, even communication studies---is a small field. The longer you're in it, the more likely it is you are going to know the author. This is especially the case, for example, with scholars who rely heavily on, say, Gilles Deleuze in their work. I can think of, maybe, seven or ten people who have the background to make a judgment about Deleuzian theory in "our field." Same goes for psychoanalysis, Nietzsche, presidential address, and so forth.

Even so, barring these possible reasons, bailing on reviewing an essay you agreed to review is much worse than being late. In general, I think there should be a stigma to it. I think editors should keep lists of such people, and then pass these lists on to succeeding editors. I think reviewers who bail on reviewing manuscripts should be talked about at conferences so that their reputation is suitably besmirched. In my view, bailing reviewers are just as bad as those professors you have had who never return term papers to students. (On that score, I'll admit I'm very slow---but my students do eventually get their papers back). In a word---and bracketing for the moment the above reasons---bailing on a review is shameful.