on publishing: parrhesia
The following post was made over on The Blogora. I'm posting it on RoseChron for readers who would like to respond but prefer a smaller audience. _______
This past June Jim Brown posted about his troubles with the length of peer review; he complained it was taking up to four months to get reviews of manuscripts. I chimed in that it was taking not months, but years to see something through the review process. I now tell aspiring scholars to anticipate at least a year, probably closer to two, for a piece to go through review and get published.
This advice may seem far-fetched, but I have too many examples to prove the exception has now become the rule. Attempting to be the parrhesiades Foucault writes about in Fearless Speech, I think it's fair to say the worst peer review experience I had was with the . . . Quarterly Journal of Speech in 2005/2006. I had a psychoanalytic piece there that languished for over a year; countless queries to the editor went unanswered for months (prompting me to complain to the NCA research board). Then, the essay was rejected on the basis of a review that claimed my piece would do irreparable harm to public address (hardly the best fit as a reviewer). I've had manuscripts lost and languishing at Philosophy and Rhetoric and the Journal of Popular Culture for over a year, too. A manuscript at Communication Theory went un-reviewed for two years until a new editor took over because the previous editor "had a nervous breakdown." I had a piece in revise-and-resubmit limbo at Critical Studies in Media Communication drag on so long (again, over a year) that my co-author and I pulled it and I resigned from the editorial board. And I have many more stories about long delays and irresponsible reviewers, but my most recent experience at Text and Performance Quarterly, a NCA journal, is a good illustration of what has become, at least for me, the "new normal" in publishing.
September 28, 2007: I submit a manuscript to Explorations in Media Ecology.
August, 2008: Reviews for submission to EME are finally in; the editor recommends that I revise and resubmit. Incidentally, this manuscript inspired the nastiest review I have ever received.
August 2009: Editor of EME resigned, so I decided to pull the manuscript and revise for a different outlet. I didn't revise for a whole year, so it's just as well. The editor and I were in touch throughout the year, and finally I just told him I would pull to save him a transitional headache.
March 29th, 2010: I submit a substantially revised version of the manuscript to Text and Performance Quarterly.
June 2010: I inquire about my manuscript. I'm told by the editorial assistant to be patient and that the editor is in Greece and one must consider the "demands" and "responsibilities" of reviewers (he obviously doesn't know I review about 15 manuscripts a year myself; more of my complaining here).
August 9, 2010: I inquire about my manuscript again:
From: Joshua Gunn Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 12:48 PM To: Editorial Assistant Subject: RE: TPQ
Dear [Editorial Assistant],
I submitted my manuscript ["Catchy Title"] twenty weeks ago today. I'm writing to ask, again, where we are in the process of review. You'll recall I inquired about six weeks ago.
Sincerely,
Josh
Instead of hearing back from the editorial assistant, however, I heard back from the editor:
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:17:29 From: Editor Subject: RE: TPQ To: Joshua Gunn
Dear Josh,
I'm so sorry for the delay with your manuscript. One review has been completed. The other referee notified me early in the summer that s/he would be unable to complete the review. As I'm sure you can understand, summer can be a difficult time to secure reviews, and my invitation to review your piece has only recently been accepted by a second referee. I would like your manuscript to benefit from two reviews, and thus I hope that you can wait a while longer.
I appreciate your patience and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.
best,
[Editor]
August 17, 2010: I finally get the reviews of my manuscript. I receive a "Reject & Resubmit" (a new one for me--what is that, exactly?) with the suggestion that I revise to make "reviewer 2" happy (reviewer 2 completely misunderstands my argument and is hostile to psychoanalysis). I email the editor and inquire if I really should revise, because I don't think I could make reviewer 2 happy at all. "Thanks for writing," s/he responds. "I know that Reviewer 2 asks for a lot--but I don't think s/he is anti-psychoanalysis in the way that the other reviewer states. . . . I guess what I'm saying is, look for where you make claims that do need more support or more connections, and pull from Reviewer 2 wherever you can. Even if you don't agree, see how you can make your argument stronger to address and counter her/his views." This is both reasonable and polite, and I take it as encouragement. So, I revise. And revise. And read a bunch of recommended stuff. And revise.
February 13, 2011: I resubmitted a substantially revised manuscript. Since some graduate students were matriculating, the fall semester was a gauntlet of defenses. I needed the holiday break to have the time to really get the thing in top shape. Finally, in the mood for love, I hit "submit" at the publisher's website for the journal.
May 30, 2011: I decide to inquire about the status of the manuscript:
From: Joshua Gunn Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 3:01 PM To: Editor Subject: RTPQ-2010-20
Dear [Editor],
Going on sixteen weeks ago I submitted a revised version of my speech recording essay. I know you leave for Greece in the summers, so I wanted to try to catch you before your globetrotting commences: any news on this essay?
Many thanks,
Josh
A week later the editor responds:
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 04:42:07 -0400 From: [Editor] Subject: RE: RTPQ-2010-20 To: Joshua Gunn
Hi, Josh,
I am indeed in Greece as we speak/write...I have one review of your revised essay. Unfortunately, additional requests for reviews were not successful in the earlier spring--hence the continued delay. There is currently a second review underway, and that review is due back in early July. Your essay is one of a handful that I'm doing my best to keep tabs on either because reviews are late or reviewers back out. You have every right to be frustrated with the length of this review process, and believe me, as soon as that second review comes in I'll be in touch with you.
best,
[Editor]
I responded to the editor I was not "frustrated," as this sort of thing seemed to be "normal" for me. I stressed, however, that I was recently promoted and tenured, so that makes it easier to sort-of shrug one's shoulders. Still: it's a lot of time.
July 19, 2011: The manuscript is rejected. "I regret to inform you that we will not be able to publish your essay in Text & Performance Quarterly," reported the editor. "For your information I attach the reviewer comments at the bottom of this email. I hope you will find them to be constructive and helpful. You will see that the second review raises a number of concerns. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so."
I responded rather curtly to the editor, inquiring if it was a new reviewer--who thought my essay was "pretentious" (and it probably is)--who helped her arrive at this decision. S/he confirmed. My response was to say her decision to base the rejection on a brand new reviewer's negative review was unfair, that the process at TPQ was unprofessional, and ultimately that is his/her responsibility and that I would share my story.
To Conclude: In this recent blow-by-blow account I've tried to be careful and avoid too much editorializing (where my parrhesia comes up short, I reckon). My hope is that readers can come to conclusions about the legitimacy of the process themselves, as well as the responsibility of the editor and reviewers during this process.
But, I do want to make a point by way of a question. What this editor said to me I have heard countless times: delinquent reviewers are routine on just about any submission I make these days. I also have reviewers who just sit on manuscripts and then bail. Instead of making the call, however, editors often try to find new reviewers. Worse, even when reviews are in, sometimes editors seek out even more reviewers on revisions, which means an author has to please even more different minds. (The latter practice really annoys me and, I suspect, represents an editor looking for a manuscript assassin; more reviewer profiling here).
Part of the problem, of course, is that my skirt is too short: I write stuff that tries to push the envelope, and given the size of our field, the only person who is probably blind in a blind review these days is yours truly. That may make it tough to get reviewers to say "yes."
My bad and pushy writing aside, there remains the larger issue. Is the problem, as Jim suggests, that blind reviewers are simply not stepping up to their responsibilities? Or, is at least part of the problem an editor's inability to make the call, even when reviews are incomplete?
I know, for example, that Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, John Lucaites, and Ray McKerrow---all editors at the Quarterly Journal of Speech---had or have policies of making the call when reviewers didn't/don't get their reviews in. Although I understand the desire of editors to get thorough reviews to help an author out, it seems to me speed is much more helpful. Speedy reviews are especially important for junior scholars in the field, who are working like dogs to achieve promotion and tenure in a very anti-higher education environment. (Here at UT "research" is under attack by a number of "conservative" policy makers, lobbyists and--gasp--regents!)
All that said: in rhetorical studies, I think it behooves our junior scholars to start planning on two-year windows for submission to publication. This isn't gonna change unless there is a concerted, discipline-wide effort to address the structural issues behind our antiquated reviewing system. We may need to move toward "team reviewers," as Jim suggests. I personally think we need to move toward all editors making calls--having a little gonadal gravitas--but perhaps that's because my personality is more Hebraic than it is Hellenic.