Interacting with people during the review process
Courteousness and professionalism in review
#EditorObservations 11 Courteousness and professionalism in review (YouTube, 1m 31s)
Many instances of unfortunate communication choices occur in the process of paper assessment and revision. Sometimes reviewers do not communicate in an appropriate tone. At Annals of Tourism Research we always welcomed honest and direct comments by reviewers, but we did expect these comments to be communicated in a professional and courteous way. There have been several instances where this did not happen, and we were alerted by the author or the associate editor. In those instances, we contacted the reviewer and explained to them that the tone of their review was not acceptable. When alerted, reviewers are usually happy to revise the assessment.
Many authors appear to be unaware of how important their responses to reviewers are. The changes the authors make to the manuscript as a result of the expert assessments they received are one thing; they way they describe these changes to reviewers are not always optimal. Authors forget that responding to reviewers is not the same as ticking off a to-do list. Rather, it is a conversation; often even a negotiation. In a conversation and even more so in a negotiation, the tone of communication matters. In my experience it is best to carefully read an expert assessor’s comment to ensure it is absolutely clear what they are recommending; then decide how to best respond to it; and finally communicate and justify this decision to the reviewer. This explanation should read like a conversation; like a professional interaction between experts aiming to jointly improve a manuscript.
Another stylistic feature I really dislike is what I refer to as “author submissiveness”. This is when authors start every response with a big thank you and a lot of flattery. It does not sound genuine and no reviewer cares about flattery; they just want to see the points they have raised to be adequately addressed.
#editorobservation
So grateful to this author!
Editors regularly deal with author complaints.
Complaints weigh heavily on us because we try hard to always do the right thing.
Emails like the one below are a refreshing contrast.
It’s such emails that keep us going.
😊🥰😍
#editorobservation
In the past, Scott McCabe and I sometimes found ourselves entering discussions with Annals of Tourism Research authors who felt the rejection of their manuscript was somehow unfair (“unprofessional”, “unethical”, “outrageous”, “biased”, “motivated by some hidden agenda”, “motivated by personal dislike of the author”, etc.).
We no longer have the time and emotional energy to engage in these discussions. Many of these interactions are disrespectful, sometimes aggressive, in language. All of them are ultimately unproductive.
Now we just invite authors to lodge a formal complaint with our publisher. After all, if indeed we have done something wrong, we are the definitely not the ones who should be investigating the matter.
We don’t mind being investigated.
We have nothing to hide.
#editorobservation
How nice to see that the Annals of Tourism Research review process worked as intended.
Very generous of the authors to take the time to drop Scott McCabe + me a note.
It’s lovely to hear about positive publishing experiences.
Motivates us to keep going…
#editorobservation
Here’s one of the many lovely interactions with authors.
The publishing / reviewing / journal editing experience is so much nicer when we can all imagine each other’s challenges in the process and if we work off the assumption that everyone has good intentions.
#editorobservation
Typically a manuscript goes through 2 review rounds in Annals of Tourism Research.
This one went through 8 (EIGHT!)
Very impressed by the persistence of the authors
Deeply grateful to reviewer #1 who did not give up and agreed to re-assess improvements until satisfied.
#editorobservation
Extremely grateful to our Annals of Tourism Research Associate Editors.
They take the time to handle submissions assigned to them with great care.
They even take time to respond to – frequently inappropriate and unjustified – author queries after rejections.
THANK YOU!
#editorobservation
Authors now routinely negotiate after a rejection.
We assess 1500 submissions per year.
All our Associate Editors are experts in their areas of expertise and highly experienced scholars. They are also extremely conscientious and put a lot of effort into their decisions.
There really is no space for negotiations.
#editorobservation
At Annals of Tourism Research we are fortunate to have an amazing team of Associate Editors (AEs).
Sometimes authors are kind enough to acknowledge the efforts of the AE in an email.
We are hugely grateful to those authors for taking the time to express their appreciation.
#editorobservation
Response to angry author email below.
Scott McCabe and I ask the Annals of Tourism Research team to use respectful language when communicating with authors.
Volunteer reviewers / Associate Editors (who help improve manuscripts) also deserve to be communicated with nicely.
#editorobservation
Our aspiration at Annals of Tourism Research is to shape the future of tourism research (see A pro-active model of journal editing).
It makes our day when an author of a published paper takes time to acknowledge how the input from (Associate) Editors helped them improve their article 😊
#editorobservation
Did I mention that I am exhausted? 😫
And it’s only Monday morning!
Another disrespectful email to an Associate Editor.
Scott McCabe looked into it: the author revised FAST but NOT CAREFULLY.
PLEASE do not write such emails.
#editorobservation
Every once in a while an Annals of Tourism Research author takes the time to write us an email to share their positive experiences.
Waking up to 13 new submissions in my inbox today, the below email was just what I needed to keep me going.
Thank you for this wonderful note!
#editorobservation
A bit tired of author complaints.
Journal editors do their very best to assess the suitability of submissions for publication, to assign them to the most appropriate Associate Editors, to find the most competent volunteer reviewers, and to do all of this without unnecessary delays. In the case of Annals of Tourism Research, we do this for some 1400 submissions every year.
Journal editors don’t expect gratitude and standing ovations for their service to the scholarly community, but we would really appreciate not being accused of unprofessional and unethical behaviour.
Thank you.
#editorobservation
CAUTHE 2021: Meet the Editor session
“Can I contact the Editor if I have been waiting for an unreasonably long time to hear back about the progress of my submission?”
Yes, absolutely!
But please be polite.
Editors and reviewers only human.
#editorobservation
At Annals of Tourism Research we process ~1500 papers a year
Little capacity left for author emails
Tips
- Ask yourself if an email to editor will change anything.
- If you really need to send an email, keep it short and succinct.
- Don’t address them as “My Darling” 😉.
#editorobservation
Editors, Associate Editors and reviewers at Annals of Tourism Research work tirelessly to process papers without delay and give authors constructive feedback.
Then authors just withdraw mid-process because they changed their mind about where to publish?
Really?
Not classy.
Not classy at all.
