One of the biggest hurdles writers say they must leap is their fear of an editor’s letter of rejection or a decision that the manuscript needs significant revision. Either response — or any response other than a blanket acceptance — can feel like, well, rejection.
As a writing coach and published author who also has edited a journal and several book collections, I get it. Twenty-three years ago, as a novice scholar, when one of my article submissions was returned with many editorial comments, questions about its significance for the discipline and concern that I had misunderstood essential theory and therefore had misapplied it, I sighed and put the piece in a file drawer. I didn’t have the time, energy or ego to tackle what felt like harsh messages. Although the recommendation was to revise and resubmit, which today I consider to be an excellent editorial response, I felt defeated.
It’s easy to see why an editor’s decision can feel so enormous in the context of a career. What’s a bit harder to see is what’s reasonable to expect from an editor and how that person can further your career regardless of the decision about any one manuscript.
Editors can engage writers in a disciplinary conversation. First and foremost, an editor is a human being just like you and me. This person has goals, frustrations, great days, bad days and — given the largely service-oriented (often volunteer) construct of being an academic editor on a shoestring — typically a strong desire to publish the best scholarship possible. Those traits mean that, while your editor might make a mistaken call on your piece, it’s more likely that any decision has been carefully considered.
Leave a Reply