Initial submission took a year and change before I received R&R. Resubmitted. I think it took about 6 months to hear back. One ref said 'Yes', one ref said 'Wait, I've thought of a new objection'. Ref says that this objection is basically the thing that stands in the way of his recommending acceptance. Objection had been addressed in initial submission in section cut to satisfy the ref's desire to have paper streamlined. Resubmit. I've waited 5 months now and no word. Upon resubmitting, one of the refs (I believe, it would be a crazy coincidence if it wasn't the ref) used the google to trace paper back to my webpage where the title was listed as a conference presentation. I can't seem to get the journal to do much to get this guy to act and I suspect that I've rubbed the ref the wrong way by pointing out (delicately and politely) that the ref's new objection was just the old objection addressed back in 2007 in a section that ref said to cut. So today I floated the possibility of pulling the thing if I didn't receive some sort of up/down decision within the month. Should I pull if I don't hear something by mid-December? Help. I need advice. When do people give up on a journal and start over?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
When do you pull a paper?
An anonymous commenter on the previous thread poses this important question, which I thought it might be good to have a fuller discussion of....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If the journal has had the paper for three years without reaching a decision and doesn't respond to your queries (Linguistics and Philosophy, I'm looking at you), then you pull it. Maybe before then, too.
While there are plenty of asshole refs who think that the mere fact that they can raise an objection to something means it shouldn't be published, there are plenty of refs who don't. It's a giant waste of time trying to please the fuckers in the first group. Just keep throwin that paper out there till you hit some sweetheart in the second group.
Save your precious time for writing the next paper.
Pull that shit after a year. I don't really get this cult-like fascination with Phil Review and JPhil that convinces otherwise sane folks to willingly send a paper off to sit around for at least a year or more before an initial decision (which even if accepted won't appear in print for at least another 18 months).
If you're like me, then you're constantly revising shit anyway, so by the time the molasses people at JPhil supercool their way over to your paper, you've already made it a better if not altogether different paper. Fuck that noise. I got philosophical seed to spread and a lifespan of 70 if I'm lucky, so while the fools are wooing those puritanical prudes on the varsity squad for years, I'm humping my way through the journal B-team (Phil Studies, Australasian, Phil Quarterly, Phil Imprint, APQ).
Spiros,
Thanks for the post.
Dr. KJ,
(i) We often disagree on various threads, but I still think you're peachy.
(ii) The journal at issue is a B-team journal (but not one mentioned). One of the reasons I've been chasing bad $ with good is the thought that if I can't get a quick response in the B-leagues, there's nothing left for me to do but wait it out.
(iii) I tend to stay away from the A-team. Phil Review treats me kindly in the sense that they've rejected me quickly each time I've submitted (once w/supportive comments!). JPhil and Mind I tend to stay away from, but they both took longer than a year to get back to me when I thought I'd chance it. I'd be more forgiving if they'd say 'Yes'. Which they still have a chance to do.
Some "A league" journals are quicker: e.g. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Nous, and Ethics. And the "B league" mentioned (such as Phil.Quarterly and Phil.Studies) are really great.
The hell with that one making you wait so long....
Whenever you pull a paper, leave lots of goo...
I once pulled a paper after a year. Within an hour of the email, I got a reply with two reports, both rejecting the paper. One of the reports was one paragraph; the other was a scanned copy of the paper, with mostly illegible handwritten marginal notes...
Post a Comment