This post is an unprofessional story.
I try not to complain too much about my interactions with editors, as I know it’s not best professionally to talk smack on the people who judge our work (and, of course, as an academic my ability to remain employed depends on my work being peer reviewed, accepted and published). Many editors are great. The team that worked with me on my book was top-notch. I highly recommend them. I literally couldn’t be happier. Their feedback was fair, was tough where it needed to be, and was generally on point. They led me to making that book a better piece of writing, and for that I will always be grateful.
It’s not always like that. I have a piece I’m currently shopping for publication that got hit really hard in an incredibly unprofessional way, though. I wanted to let it go, but every time I think about revising that piece (which I am doing now– I have it open in another window), the editorial comments put me in an instant bad mood.
I know that in talking about it, it is no doubt me, in the eyes of others, who is “sour grapes,” and that it’s I who need to “toughen up.” To anyone who takes that tack, you’re certainly welcome to, but trust me when I say that I’ve faced more daunting, more dangerous and more important things than bad feedback on a journal article. And I’m fine with the idea that the piece isn’t worthy of publication. It’s a left-over idea from graduate school that I tried to polish up and get out the door because I actually thought some people in the world might find use in reading it. I’m all good with “this isn’t up to par” or “this just doesn’t add anything to the field.” If it sucks, I’m cool with it sucking.
What I’m not cool with is editors-as-bullies. Not so much for me. I’ve heard worse (I had a different editor absolutely tear apart one of my most personal, most truly important academic works because I didn’t focus on women while focusing on race, as if that’s somehow a criteria of writing about race–but again, agree to disagree). I was told by a colleague that I wasn’t a real Indian. I’ve seen some stuff. I will keep seeing stuff. I’m a big boy, with big boy pants (well, I usually wear shorts, actually). I can handle it. Sometime I’ll tell you about how my dad messed me up for real, if you want to hear me talk about someone hurting my feelings. I have stories.
What bothers me is that I know that I am but one of many, many people who submit to such journals. I’m not special. I don’t think anyone was out to get me. And I did out myself as Native as part of the dialogue, so I guess it could be due to race, but I am assuming I was still mostly blind-reviewed. That means that other people could potentially be receiving the same sorts of comments back. Other people could be getting bullied and mocked instead of receiving useful feedback. And that’s not cool.
To anyone who might say “you should have taken this up with the editor and not talked about it in public,” I did take it up with the editor, and we had a productive, positive discussion. I hold the main editors of that journal no ill will, and I’m not going to name names here. I might even resubmit, if I can get the bad taste out of my mouth from the initial experience. But as for the “it’s not cool to make this sort of stuff public” argument, I’m just going to have to agree to disagree with you.
Academia is a place where people suffer in silence. I see it with my colleagues. I see it with grad students. I see it with undergraduates that I work with. My question is “why?” If my sharing this leads to one other young academic reading it and saying “oh, it’s not just me. Other people get comments that are truly puzzling and seem hateful,” then I’ve done for that person a far greater good than whatever mysterious offense I do to the field by saying “I had a shitty experience with an editor.” The idea that being an academic means that we should treat all things academic as beyond reproach would only work if “we” were doing that for “me,” too. And we aren’t. So I’m not. I’ve never once said a single word about anyone who didn’t deserve it.
And if you’re a younger person who is doing first-read screening for a journal (and I do– I read for three journals and have read for four different conferences, something I enjoy and take seriously), remember that there’s a difference between attacking a piece you think isn’t worthwhile and doing your job as an editor. You should be critical. That’s what editing is. If a piece isn’t good enough, you need to make that clear and offer suggestions as to how to make it better. But you’re not Simon Cowell, and no one is going to high five you if you come up with the “sickest” burn. You aren’t important enough that your being snarky is going to feel cool to a reader. You’re just some editor reading their work. Just a person doing a job. Also you might have to accept, from time to time, that if something is important to you, it isn’t automatically important to everyone, and if you see a person missing a chance to write something that explores what you think is important, that doesn’t automatically mean that person didn’t still say something of merit. For example, almost every political argument I’ve ever seen COULD have included Indigenous people, but the fact that everything written in America doesn’t have a section addressing the Cherokee, for example, doesn’t mean those things are without merit. You aren’t in the position of editor to make everything like the way you’d want it to. You’re editing to make sure that stuff passes the test for rigor and usefulness. I know in Trump America it’s hard to not think your opinion is the ultimate judge, but it really isn’t. You should have training to know how to tell rigorous work from shoddy work. That’s what you’re supposed to be doing.
Your job as an editor isn’t to hurt people. It’s not to cause ill will. Whether you want the piece for publication or not, you job is to help that writer do better. If it isn’t, why the fuck are you in academia in the first place? You can lord over people much more easily in other fields.
Don’t be a bully, be a mentor.