Blogora Classic: Aune on Multiple Submissions, February 26, 2005

February 26, 2005

Multiple Submissions

John Holbo at the Crooked Timber blog has an interesting post about multiple submissions to scholarly journals. Law professors can submit articles to several journals at once (often using an acceptance by one journal to bargain acceptance at a higher-ranked journal). It is common to submit book manuscripts to multiple publishers. So why not do so for scholarly journals as well? Two of the last 4 refereed articles I have published have taken two years from submission to publication, and I know I'm not alone on this. (Oh to have the joy of acceptance without revisions; does that ever happen? I don't want to know. . . .) Tenured professors on editorial boards are slow to return articles (I'm guilty of this, too) on which the careers of junior faculty depend, and there seems to be no way to fix the system--short of allowing multiple submissions. Any opinions?

Posted by jim at February 26, 2005 07:00 AM

I'd love to see the no-no on multiple submissions of articles in the humanities lifted. That would at least save authors time in the initial (artical acceptance) stage. But i'm not sure it would do much beyond that first stage. I mean, it doesn't seem to have lit any fires under book publishers. The length of time it takes American university presses to put a book out is ... well, nuts. In France, for example, the process often takes months rather than years. My first book ms was submitted in 1995, accepted in 1997 with barely any revisions, and finally appeared in 2000. (When my author copies came in the mail, I was like: "hi, who are you?") So i don't know if allowing multiple journal submissions would be that effective in speeding up the submission to publication time for journals, either... Maybe i'm wrong.

Posted by: ddd at February 26, 2005 07:54 AM

Speaking from what seems to be the boonies of academia (the two-year college, which generally provides little if any encouragement or opportunity for scholarship), I'd like to pose several questions that--I guess--strike at the heart of the institution known as refereed publication, particularly in the humanities:

Exactly what is the purpose of scholarly publication--and I guess I should refine that question by asking what is its *primary* purpose today? Is it primarily to make possible the communication, the sharing of new theories, perspectives, discoveries . . .? Or is it primarily to serve as one of the hoops through which scholars must jump to enter and stay in the community (to deserve the label of "scholar")? In other words, today is it primarily a means of sharing and developing knowledge, or is it primarily a procedural convention or requirement?

Refereed publication is the academic baseline for scholarly credibility (unless my view from the margins is either hopelessly naive or misinformed). But--are referees still used primarily to ensure the credibility of the text itself? Or is their purpose primarily to help determine those articles "most worthy" of publication--and to help weed the garden? To what extent do the revisions requested by referees impose their own slant on this publication of new insights, etc.; in other words, to what extent does the use of referees serve a conservative purpose, given that referees are presumably veteran, acknowledged scholars--those who've already made a mark via their own theories, perspectives, etc.? To what extent does refereed publication help to stultify discourse in a number of ways, including the canonization of certain theoretical approaches at the expense of others? (For example, how often were stylistic analyses--gasp, formalistic approaches!--published in rhetorical and especially literary journals during the 80s and 90s--except, of course, in the journal Style?)

Obviously, those on the editorial staff of a particular journal shape the theoretical slant, especially--of course--when a journal is intended to promote a particular angle. I'm questioning how the function of referees has developed with respect to theoretical as well as professional gate-keeping.

So, why does it take so long for the referral process to occur? Granted, the humanities are very different from the technologies, in which timely communication of "cutting edge" insights, discoveries, approaches is made more likely via journal publication (rather than book publication). Nevertheless, it does seem quite ironic that at a time when communication of ideas is quicker than ever before, the humanities (and perhaps other areas) seem to be saddled with an apparatus that in fact might slow rather than speed up communication, and therefore possibly impede discourse.

Posted by: Connie Ostrowski at February 26, 2005 03:51 PM

Amen to that sentiment. It takes on average two years for everything--that is, if the editor moves things along. Now that I feel my blood boiling (junior faculty blood), I need to stop typing before a rant . . . .

Posted by: Josh at March 1, 2005 10:35 AM