Subject: Re: Acadmeic imperialism, etc., etc., etc.

From: [email-masked] (Tim McLay)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:01:51 -0400 (EDT)

Apologies to Jimmy Adair and the list for another comment,

It has been mentioned that many worthy articles get rejected. It would be
nice if someone in the know could give us the percentage of articles
submitted that get rejected.  I have been told that it is very high in the
humanities.  Obviously, some of those that are rejected are less deserving
of print than others.  However, Biblical/religious scholars have probably
more access to publication than most disciplines.  I also believe that there
is generally integrity in the process.  I say "generally" because some
approaches or style may be nixed by one reader and embraced by another.  
Finally, I think we would be kidding ourselves if we didn't admit to there
being at least some "imperialism" (for lack of a better word.)  What I mean
is that people get asked for contributions to journals or books because of
their expertise and their associations.  This of course takes some space
from others, but people become acknowledged scholars and are asked for their
contributions because they produce quality material. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McLay           [email-masked]

Surface: 2415 Prospect Rd.
         Hatchet Lake, NS
         B3T 1V2   Canada

---

From: "GLENN WOODEN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:06:05 AST4ADT

In repsonse to Tim McLay's question (below):
While a student, I did research for a paper on the scholarly 
communication process. One author claimed that the rejection rate in 
the humanities was about 80%. If there are editors on the list, it 
would be interesting to how they react to that in light of their 
experience.

> humanities. 

Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada

[email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:44:27 +000

> From:          "GLENN WOODEN" <[email-masked]>
> Organization:  Acadia University

> > submitted that get rejected.  I have been told that it is very high in the

Having served on the editorial boards of a couple of journals and 
having been involved for the last few years in promoting the 
development of Internet-based journals across the disciplines, I can 
report the following.  The acceptance/rejection rates of journals 
vary (a) within the same field depending on the prestige factor of 
the journal and thus how massive the submission flow--for the number 
of annual pages is fixed and only so many articles can be published 
each year regardless of the number of submissions, (b) from field to 
field--science journals have *acceptance* rates of about 40-60%, 
whereas top Humanities journals have acceptance rates of about 
10-25%.  This is in part because science journals are bigger overall, 
publish often monthly not quarterly, and the articles are shorter 
permitting more to be published.  
Thus, it is true that rejection by a given journal in the Humanities 
does not necessarily mean that the article is garbage or not up to 
scratch.  It may mean all that!  But rejection may also mean (a) the 
article doesn't fit the editorial scope of the journal--e.g., JBL 
doesn't tend to publish just now review-essays; (b) the article while 
good isn't among the 20-30 that can be accommodated from the hundreds 
submitted.  One is always advised to read the assessors' comments 
very carefully, and learn from them.  It may often be the case that 
basically the same article might be published in another journal 
whose editorial policies and scope fit it better or whose submission 
rate is not as great, or for other reasons.
But, when one has submitted an article to two or three good journals 
and gotten back similar criticisms as a basis for rejection, one 
simply has to reckon with the real probability that one's work is 
somehow seriously short of the mark.  It is, of course, always a 
theoretical possibility that one is simply so far ahead of one's time 
that the dolts assessing don't know solid gold when they see it.  But 
it is a rather daring person who thinks that more probable than the 
alternative.  One should at least look for *some* kind of 
critically-valid encouragment, preferably from scholars whose own 
position does not dictate that they must agree with one!

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]