Thread by @ethuin

#AcademicTwitter, there is a great tendency towards more transparency, reflection and inflection about publishing, process, success and failure in our work. This one, has been more failure than success for most of the time, so let me share a short story on this article. Thread...

https://twitter.com/ethuin/status/1372906261554020358

This piece is based on the last of 5 substantive empirical chapters of my PhD that I wrote about 3 years ago. It's been in several ways the least intended and most haphazard chapter, but at the same time the most intriguing to research.

While some of my supervisors said it's the most important and useful chapter of my dissertation, draft versions of it were rejected by two journals before this final version ended up getting published. That process taught me about the uneven world of academic publishing...

I've long been and I still am skeptical and critical of academic publishing. Economically, it is to large extent a huge scam controlled by a small crowd of private publishers making big money by extracting value of publicly-funded research.

Moreover, being published does not offer infallible judgment of quality. I've managed to get poor research published and be rejected for very good research. The quality of editors and reviewers is as variable than that of us authors, piece per piece.

In this particular case, I began by submitting a previous draft of my paper to a very distinguished journal specialising on African affairs. After two rounds of reviews and revisions, it was a tight decision...

As so often, there was one spot-on reviewer offering highly critical but useful feedback. The second one was, let's say, ok, but not really a big help. The editors, however, were the best...

Despite obvious weaknesses in the manuscript, they pushed me to improve theoretically and empirically, by providing extremely detailed and engaged editor reviews/comments.

In the end, I was told that my re-re-submitted paper sat on the very thin edge of being published, but that – given both remaining flaws on my side and a queue of Congo-focussed papers – they would give it a pass. Still, I was thankful for the process.

After reworking the paper, I then submitted to another journal, specialising rather in eastern African studies. After a very long wait I received some lukewarm reviews that I tried to address the best possible way.

Having resubmitted the piece, I waited roughly 8 months without real news. When I pressed and asked for the status, I got a rejection without explanation except for "it wasn't in the scope" of the journal (though curiously, my first submission had been in the scope!?).

I was slightly surprised, but given the lousy performance by both reviewers and editors handling my work, I thought it was probably for the better. Yet, still curious, I asked around and figured that this is a regular pattern.

Bear in mind, while some journals have fantastic teams, others are just a bunch of disinterested and unprofessional folks. Such is life, such are humans. I am myself alone a great and a shitty researcher at the same time, depending on moment, mood, topic and other factors.

Finally, I significantly re-oriented/rewrote the piece and thought, in a last try I'll just pick a journal I've really liked for long (which turned out to be @ROAPEjournal) and, in case I fail again, I'll self-publish as a @5uluhu working paper (bribing my co-editor @RadleyBen).

Resubmitted there, I faced again the classic reviewer composition (one very engaged and helpful, the second semi-interested but fine.). After revisions, editors accepted by paper. Yet, reviewer two had – in broken English – complained that my English wasn't great.

That's another recurrent issue in academic publishing. English dominates, for both good (common ground) and less good (exclusion) reasons. I told @ROAPEjournal editors that I was on a precarious contract with no funding to pay professional editing.

And, to my surprise, the reaction was even better I could imagine. My editor wrote me expressing understanding, and connected me to the to the absolutely fabulous Clare Smedley, who helped fine-tuning stuff. What followed was the most pleasant publishing experience I had so far.

Why am I tweeting all this? Academic publishing is a stressful process to many, and there is an unhealthy balance between a peer-review process that is only in theory fair, anonymous and non-discriminatory and a pressure to 'publish or perish'.

We should all question & critique these things much more publicly & openly. Being published is but one in many criteria to judge if you do good research. Being published is a result as much of luck than academic skill. Never forget that when you face shitty reviewers or journals.

To end this impure mixture of rant and motivational speech, I'd like to thank those who helped my producing this piece, and the entire @ROAPEjournal team.