That being said, I'd just like to reiterate that these are simply from my experience and viewpoint, as well as discussions with our publisher from a previous event.
So, without further ado, some more things to think about:
7. Your paper has a very poor theoretical framework,
including references to relevant literature.
There’s a thing that most referees and reviewers do when
they pick up a new article or book – they flip straight to the bibliography and
see what the sources are. If any of the major works are missing, there are
audible grumbles. It’s like trying to explain the Mr Men and omitting Mr Happy.
It just doesn’t help you.
Your paper should, ideally, place itself within the
framework of the literature pretty quickly. This is the so what, who cares? question that you need to be addressing. A
journal article is much shorter than a dissertation, thesis, and monograph;
therefore, you need to include the relevant literature and build the framework
quickly. Don’t dither and leave it to page 8 or you will have lost not only the
administrator, but also the editor and any potential referees. Papers where the
reader has to do a lot of work are hard to get reviewed so suffer from the
things I discuss in this post.
Reviewers will suggest important works that may have been
omitted for whatever reason. The point is, pay attention to the pivotal
relevant literature. Don’t add references just because, but make sure you are
engaging with the existing field.
Publications are part
of the ongoing scholarly discussion of academia. Like any discussion worth
having, you can’t just say what you want to say in total isolation. It must
link to what has already been said and what is likely to be said in the future.
6. You haven’t contextualised your paper and considered your
audience.
Just to reiterate a mantra: each journal is different. This
includes each journal having a different audience. Some journals are aimed at
academics; some are aimed at practitioners. Some are even aimed at postgraduate
students, and some are aimed at industry. Know which audience the journal you
are submitting to addresses. This is the why
are you telling me? part. Don’t submit a paper aimed at academic theorists
to a practitioner-targeted journal unless you make an exceptionally well
contextualised argument. Even then, the editor is likely to reject your paper
and suggest you submit to an academic theory-based journal.
Editors have to look for papers that their readership will
not only be interested in reading but also likely to engage with and cite in
further papers. Your best chance of success is to be what the editor is looking
for.
5. Your paper doesn’t add to the discussion or states the
obvious at tedious length
A somewhat obvious biggie. By this, I simply mean you haven’t
said anything new; you haven’t added your voice to the scholarly discussion. And
yes, even literature reviews must add something new. Don’t submit the worst
kind of “literature review” – one that is simply a glorified listing of
relevant literature with no analysis. The analysis is the new, and essential,
part.
Sometimes though, regardless of whether or not something new
is stated, papers are tedious and do nothing but state the obvious. It’s very,
very difficult to get a reviewer to look at an exceptionally long paper,
especially if it can be summed up in a much shorter paper. To be honest, I’ve
seen submissions where I’ve read a few pages and in the back of my mind all I
can hear is “Round and round she goes, and where she stops nobody knows” (That’s
a line from The Original Amateur Hour for
you kiddies out there).
And that's all for now, folks. I'll have to add the next post when I get a chance. Maybe the Spring/Easter break will afford some time. Maybe not.
As always, questions/queries/comments/suggestions are always welcome either via Twitter, Email, or below.
-theAdmin
