Questions (and Answers) That Journal Editors Frequently Receive

I’ve been on both sides of the author-editor relationship. I was an editor of the American Sociological Association’s sole pedagogical journal, Teaching Sociology, from 2010-2014. In those five years, I wrote over hundreds of decision letters; I struggled with each one. How to encourage realistically some, let others down gently but honestly, and celebrate with those who were to be published. And while I have had many articles and several books published, I have also felt the sting of what I felt were unfair editorial decisions. I’ve had my share of “Reviewer 2’s” inappropriate or off-topic comments. I want to answer some questions I was frequently asked as an editor.

What are the reasons that an editor might reject a manuscript without review? (Sometimes called a “desk reject”)

Probably the most common reason is that the manuscript was not a good fit for the journal and its mission. So for example, the journal I edited was a pedagogically-focused journal about sociology. But I sometimes received a manuscript which didn’t fit that mission. For example, a manuscript might be submitted and it is on how the interactions between a school principal and the school district’s central office shaped the budgeting process for an elementary school. Interesting, but I rejected that manuscript without sending it out to reviewers, because it was not enough about pedagogy. I would though, give the author the names of a few journals to which it was a better fit (in this case, the ASA journal, Sociology of Education). Other times the manuscript was pedagogical in nature, but was about teaching, for example, the introduction to political science college course, and not about teaching sociology. Again, I would instantly reject it but suggest that discipline’s pedagogical journal (if there was one).

Can I ignore some comments either made by the editor or a reviewer?

Of course you can, but …. think through the critique carefully before you choose to ignore it. If several reviewers are saying the same comment—I don’t think you should ignore it. And if you do, don’t pretend the comment wasn’t stated repeatedly when you go to write the cover letter for your revised manuscript to the editor and reviewers. You will need to explain why you chose to ignore the comment. Would it have changed the point of the manuscript in ways you disagreed with? How so? Would a suggestion to use a different theoretical framework have required too much new literature? Or perhaps would it have required more data collection? And why would that not be a good thing? Tell them why you made the choice to ignore their comment.

Can I begin a revision and send it to you, the editor, for your comments and thoughts, outside of the online submission system?

Ask the editor about this in an email before you do it. Editors of top journals, who receive hundreds of submissions a month, will likely say ‘No.” But other journals might have a more developmental approach to working with authors and might say “Yes” to doing this once in a while. If the editor says “Yes,” please don’t abuse her or his kindness by sending a new paragraph a day. Work hard to revise the most complex part of the manuscript, based on the editor’s and reviewers’ comments and send it once for consideration. Be sure to thank the editor when you receive feedback.

Is it okay to call an editor about a decision letter and/or comments?

Sure it is. But do it when you are calm and/or have the emotional wave that can hit an author reading a decision letter the first time, under control. Don’t call when you are angry. Know what you want to talk about. What do I mean? You want to be able to speak like this with the editor, “Your comment about weaving theory throughout the lit review section confused me, could you say more?” and not talk like this: “I think your decision is wrong and crazy and you need to change it this instant.” Usually, when an author called me and talked like that, the last statement had a few expletives added in for good measure. Remember two things about the editor: 1) You want to keep the editor thinking positively about your ability to edit the manuscript as requested so that it can be published, and 2) He or she is human, too, so try not to piss off the editor deliberately with your choice of words. Your goal for calling the editor should be to establish a good working relationship that gets your questions answered about how to revise the manuscript.

Do I have to follow the editor’s timetable for revisions?

Have to? No, but I strongly suggest that you do—especially if the manuscript received a “conditional accept” decision. Many editors tentatively slot conditionally accepted manuscripts into future editions which are already in process, so not returning it on time can impact production schedules.

If you know you cannot meet the deadline,  contact the editor and propose a realistic new date. Once agreed to…be sure to meet that revised deadline.

The worst thing to do is to just “ghost” the editor. I had an author once call me, very upset by my editorial decision (which was a “conditional accept!”). The author eventually calmed down and realized that making the changes would strengthen the article. We agreed to a one month deadline for the revisions and I planned on making that the lead article for the edition which would be published in 6 months. But then I didn’t hear from the author (despite numerous emails and calls from me)…for almost two years. Then suddenly I received the revised manuscript in the mail. Trouble is, so much time had passed that it was now considered a brand new submission and had to go back through the entire review process. And I had an unhappy author, once again. Most journals have policies about how long a manuscript can be dormant before it must be treated as a new submission. So check the journal’s website or call and ask the editor. Another wrinkle in this can be that during the dormancy, there might be an editor change, which can sometimes shift the focus of the journal. So please, don’t ghost your editor!!

HELP! I’m going through the comments from the editor and the reviewers and they disagree. What am I supposed to do now?

While this can feel like an overwhelming problem, it actually is a pretty common one. Different people, with different backgrounds, construct different meanings to your text. Disagreements can give you a window into how future readers (if the manuscript gets published) might view your words and give you ideas about how to tighten up the manuscript.

When there are these conflicts, I suggest you read the editor’s letter very closely. If the editor mentions one reviewer’s comments and to consider using them in the next iteration of your manuscript—but not another reviewer who disagreed with the first reviewer—consider that your answer. The editor is pointing out how she prefers you to resolve the conflict. If you agree more with the “sidelined reviewer” and it concerns a substantive portion of the manuscript, then I would suggest you contact the editor about it. Again, do it when you are calm and have marshalled your arguments for why you believe the other reviewer’s comments would make the story embedded in your manuscript better.

The journal I edited had a policy that under nearly all circumstances, reviewers’ comments were to be shared with the author (but anonymously). A few of them I passed on, but I was so angry with the reviewer that I wrote them and said I would never use them again as a reviewer. So realize that sometimes the editor is in a tough spot–not liking the comments too. We might not be able to say it that bluntly if you call us, but listen between our words–we’ll likely let you know if that’s the issue. Okay?

One last piece of advice: editors need authors and their manuscripts. Editors need to move manuscripts to publication. They are not the enemy of authors, but they do function as gatekeepers…human ones who try to do their best for the journal and their academic discipline. So try to see their words as helpful tools to make your manuscript better. But if you feel an editor is acting unprofessionally—especially if you feel you are being discriminated against—contact the publisher of the journal. Again, do your best to explain the situation as you perceive it and see what processes there are in place for adjudication.

And one last heartfelt request: Offer to be a reviewer for the journals which publish articles which are meaningful to you, to your graduate and undergraduate students. Editors need people to review. Often part of long wait to hear back from an editor is the number of people who turn down editors’ request to review a manuscript. I once received my first “Yes send it to me” on the 28th person I contacted. So yes, it is unpaid labor and often not counted as much as it should in promotion and tenure decisions—but journals need reviewers too.

Have more questions? Write a comment and let’s keep talking!

Please visit the Pedagogical Thoughts website to contact me about institutional or individual consulting, dissertation editing or coaching about writing.