Journal Submissions, Part 2: Setting (Higher) Standards for Evaluations

This is the second post in a two-part series on the evaluation process for articles submitted to journals. In this first post, I (RDH) described a few of my more colourful experiences in the publishing game. In this second post, we offer our thoughts on the flip-side: the task of the reviewer/editorial board member. We recognize that there are editors and reviewers who excel and we commend them for their hard work. These comments are not in any way aimed at them. Indeed, even for those editors or reviewers who behave in ways similar to what we described in the first post, since it is unlikely that our views will matter to them, these comments are not aimed at them. Rather, as with all our posts on this blog, we hope to provoke a bit of rumination among younger scholars who will one day be editors or reviewers (and at whose mercy we may find ourselves some day!)

Journal Submissions, Part 1: Experiencing the (Often Unjustifiably Painful) Evaluations

This is the first post in a two-part series on the evaluation process for articles submitted to journals. [Update: the second part has been posted.] In this first post, I (RDH) will describe a few of my more colourful experiences in the publishing game. In the second post, we (RDH and JAC) will offer our thoughts on the flip-side: the task of the reviewer/editorial board member. The numerous difficult experiences I’ve (RDH) had in getting articles accepted have decisively informed my behaviour as a board member and ad hoc reviewer. For John, the authorial experiences have been happier, but besides serving as an ad hoc reviewer he’s also seen the publishing issues from the “other side” in his former work as an editor. Both posts together serve as our appeal for editors and reviewers to—at the same time— impose more rigorous standards and make sure submissions are reviewed carefully and objectively.