Rejection
Last June, while house/catsitting, I came across a scholarly journal titled: "The Journal of American Culture." For some reason, I decided to read it. Okay--the thesis of the main article I read (titled "Rubber Ducks and their Significance in Contemporary American Culture") was, in a nutshell, that rubber duckies are popular in American Culture because they make adults nostalgic for childhood, and they (duckies) are fun. I don't have beef with scholarship about duckies (this sounds cool), but I do have beef with scholarship about rubber duckies that is kind of like, obvious.
Between bursts of incredulity that this kind of writing constitutes groundbreaking research, I felt heartened. I thought, "This article is bad. I write bad stuff all the time. I ought to submit to this journal." So I did.
Anyway, I got the response back today. Here are the highlights:
"The strengths of this manuscript are limited. The main strength of the submission is probably the enthusiasm that the author demonstrates for his or her subject."
So the only thing good about the paper is...that I thought it was good? Snap.
"This manuscript needs a major overhaul in its conception, its attempted analysis, and its writing mechanics. It is loosely put together, conversational and even choppy in style, and subject to broad, often unsubstantiated generalizations."
"Attempted analysis"? That is a low blow. Remember, JOURNAL OF AMERICAN CULTURE, you published that rubber duckie thing.
"There are many such sweeping generalizations throughout the author’s commentary where virtually all of the insights derive from Foucault, which makes the reader wonder why not just go back to Foucault’s original works rather than rely on the undeveloped arguments in this particular submission. "
JAC, this is just unnecessary vitriol. I think you must be very bitter and unsatisfied with your role in academia.
I'm a little flattered that somebody took all this time to lambast my paper, and I agree with a lot of the criticisms. The paper has got plenty of weakesses, fo sho. I guess it's just surprising that this is coming from the journal that published the duckie paper. (If you're so inclined to read it, you should, so you can see just exactly what I'm talking about: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1542-734X.2006.00271.x?cookieSet=1)
I'm questioning why I am in this PhD program and thinking seriously of dropping out. If this is what awaits me, I would rather teach comp and write short stories.
Or maybe I am just overly sensitive about this scathing criticism because it came on my birthday.
Between bursts of incredulity that this kind of writing constitutes groundbreaking research, I felt heartened. I thought, "This article is bad. I write bad stuff all the time. I ought to submit to this journal." So I did.
Anyway, I got the response back today. Here are the highlights:
"The strengths of this manuscript are limited. The main strength of the submission is probably the enthusiasm that the author demonstrates for his or her subject."
So the only thing good about the paper is...that I thought it was good? Snap.
"This manuscript needs a major overhaul in its conception, its attempted analysis, and its writing mechanics. It is loosely put together, conversational and even choppy in style, and subject to broad, often unsubstantiated generalizations."
"Attempted analysis"? That is a low blow. Remember, JOURNAL OF AMERICAN CULTURE, you published that rubber duckie thing.
"There are many such sweeping generalizations throughout the author’s commentary where virtually all of the insights derive from Foucault, which makes the reader wonder why not just go back to Foucault’s original works rather than rely on the undeveloped arguments in this particular submission. "
JAC, this is just unnecessary vitriol. I think you must be very bitter and unsatisfied with your role in academia.
I'm a little flattered that somebody took all this time to lambast my paper, and I agree with a lot of the criticisms. The paper has got plenty of weakesses, fo sho. I guess it's just surprising that this is coming from the journal that published the duckie paper. (If you're so inclined to read it, you should, so you can see just exactly what I'm talking about: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1542-734X.2006.00271.x?cookieSet=1)
I'm questioning why I am in this PhD program and thinking seriously of dropping out. If this is what awaits me, I would rather teach comp and write short stories.
Or maybe I am just overly sensitive about this scathing criticism because it came on my birthday.