I've been away for roughly a week, and everything's going to hell. I unfortunately do not have time to comment on the idiotic department that touts its ranking in that utterly fraudulent and incompetent "pluralist" guide to philosophy. Nor can I remark at length on the blinding lack of foresight that the APA has exhibited in conducting its "back to 1992" retro-"renovation" of its already dysfunctional webpage. Nice job with the submission deadlines, jackasses!! One must wonder: Why take the old site down before the new one is ready?
I did just come across a curiosity. I was just reviewing a paper for a journal, and was surprised to find the author thanking in the footnotes anonymous reviews for another journal. I'd never seen that before. I suppose its a nice gesture of giving credit where it's due, but it does have the consequence of revealing that the paper was rejected by at least one other journal... When it gets rejected from the journal that is currently reviewing it, perhaps I'll get thanked too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's obviously quite common for papers rejected at one journal to be accepted at another. You know that the acknowledgments frequently read something along the lines of "Thanks to several anonymous referees for helpful comments." Surely you haven't always assumed that these remarks were always thanking referees at the journal that accepted the paper? What we have here is the case of a very honest philosopher. If you find that fucked up, you're nuts. But maybe you just found it curious that a philosopher would be so honest and forthcoming.
I think Spiros might have found it odd to include those thanks (which name the rejecting journal too) in a footnote before the paper was accepted. In several decades of reviewing, I have not seen this.
I've never seen anyone thank the reviewers at another journal for comments, though I've seen (as Anon 12:20 has noted) thanks for "several referees" plenty of times. A well-crafted referee's report is something to be thankful for, even if it yields a rejection.
I wonder, though, if there's a corollary. I've had some rejections based on stupid reviewer's reports, and I've used those dumb responses to improve the paper, too. That is, by idiot-proofing the argument. Do those reviewers deserve thanks? How about a shout-out to the journal that listened to them?
I always make it a point to thank blog moderators who have rejected a comment when I submit that comment to another blog. But that's only because I'm one honest and forthcoming motherfucker.
I saw a great deal of helpful information above!
Post a Comment