Interacting with people during the review process
Courteousness and professionalism in response to desk rejection
When embarking on a career in research, only one thing is certain: it will involve many rejections. Rejections of manuscripts from journals, rejections from grant funding bodies, rejections for awards, for promotions, for job applications. Rejections in academia are the norm, not the exception. Academics can learn a lot from elite athletes. They, too, experience many more failures than successes. They train themselves to see every failure as a stepping stone to development that ultimately leads to success. This is precisely how a rejection of a manuscript from a journal is best conceptualised. Most rejections come with at least a short justification of why the article was not suitable for publication. If the manuscript was sent out for review, the rejection may even come with a detailed assessment of the weaknesses; the opportunities to grow and improve. Star athletes among academics learn from this feedback and improve. Some authors struggle with rejection and send disrespectful, accusatory and sometimes even aggressive emails to journal editors or associate editors, typically complaining about what sounds like a global conspiracy against them and their work. But it is not personal. It is just a process. If a researchers cannot deal with the process and translate it into growth and development, academia may not be a healthy career choice for them. In terms of the individual instance of complaint: it is extremely unlikely that an editor or associate editor will change their assessment in response to a complaint. This is because they have thought long and hard about the initial decision to ensure they are comfortable it is the correct outcome. Authors may think that there is no downside to complaining. This is incorrect. Editors are people. People can get hurt by carelessly formulated emails. People struggle to forget the authors of inappropriate emails. While this does not translate in any kind of blacklisting, it is counterproductive to building a strong reputation as a scholar.
#editorobservation
Rejections hurt 😥
When my manuscripts / grant proposals get rejected, I try..
- not to overreact
- not to lose confidence in the review system
- to figure out how I can improve the work
- to remember that a project was rejected, not me as a scholar.
#editorobservation
It’s becoming more common for authors to argue with editors after a rejection 😫
Very time-consuming.
Rarely leads to desired outcome.
Example below Annals of Tourism Research word limit is 10,000 words.
Maybe the complexity of this author’s work is best expressed in a book.
#editorobservation
@GingerGorman taught me how to respond to abuse on social media: “be calm and corrective – no abuse”.
Today an Annals of Tourism Research Associate Editor received an abusive email in response to a well-justified desk rejection decision.
Not OK.
Had to respond.
Words matter.
#editorobservation
Usually Scott McCabe and I only get emails when authors complain that something about our review process is totally outrageous.
Today a note from the authors who failed 2x to format their paper correctly.
Heart-warming for us also.
Sure, we will let them resubmit.
#editorobservation
Great week for Scott McCabe and me.
3 nice notes from authors – only 1 angry one.
We don’t enjoy rejecting papers.
We want to publish them.
Rejecting is very unpleasant.
The fun bit is publishing brilliant, fascinating, intriguing, inspiring papers.
#editorobservation
A heartwarming #editorobservation.
Scott McCabe and I are used to letters from authors (some quite aggressive) arguing the rejection of their paper by Annals of Tourism Research was unfair.
But sometimes we also get nice notes.
They mean a lot to us.
Today, this note made my day.
THANK YOU!
#editorobservation
Thank you very much to all the authors – and their supervisors – who appreciate constructive feedback from editors and reviewers.
Below is a lovely note we received today.
Scott McCabe takes a huge amount of time to provide detailed feedback.
#editorobservation
So sad😢
This author deserves a bit of mentoring by an experienced colleague.
Tips
- Read papers in target journal
- Read journal aims + scope
- Read submission guide
- Remember that – as much as we would like to – journal editors don’t have time to mentor authors.
#editorobservation
The Annals of Tourism Research communicates professionally and kindly with authors, irrespective of message content.
We will continue to do even if we ourselves are increasingly the subject of verbal abuse by authors.
We don’t “accuse” authors of anything. Our decisions are guided by our obligation to act in compliance with Copyright laws and our commitment to comply with principles of research ethics.
#editorobservation
Email to Annals of Tourism Research Associate Editor who explained desk rejection in detail.
Lovely to see review process work as intended: editor/reviewer offering constructive feedback authors taking it on board to improve (irrespective of immediate publication outcome).
#editorobservation
Great start to my day!
The review system worked as intended.
Author received constructive feedback with initial desk rejection from Scott McCabe.
Author improved paper.
Now it’s under review 🙂
Fingers crossed it gets published!
#editorobservation
Just received a rejection from Annals of Tourism Research.
Important to know that editors have no special privileges in the review system, not even with the journal they edit.
Not my first rejection from Annals of Tourism Research.
Good to know the system is working as intended!
#editorobservation
If you believe in conspiracy theories of journal editors being gatekeepers and publishing their mate’s papers, I thought it might be useful to share yesterday’s rejection of my paper at Annals of Tourism Research after 1 review round.
[For those who don’t know – I am the Co-Editor in Chief of this journal, together with Scott McCabe].
Most journal editors do the right thing.
