(no subject)
So, this morning (WTF, America, it is a holiday!) I got the reviewer's comments back on the article I spent July revising and submitted to its journal at the beginning of August. On the plus side, the verdict is a revise and resubmit! I wasn't expecting anything else, given that I sent it off knowing that it was poorly-organized and half-baked and that there was nothing else I could do about it without some outside help. The journal editor is now offering to hook me up with some of that help, which is good, because ugh, how do I musicology?
On the downside, I was sort of hoping that the reviewer would be a little more specific in how to address some of the structural problems. One comment I've had from almost all the outside readers who have looked at my work (not just this article) in the past couple of years is that my writing/arguments are repetitive, which is a fair comment, but I'm not sure how to fix it. I was hoping for some suggestions about structure, dammit!
Some of the other suggestions, however, are kind of exciting. And then there's the one about my appendix, which is my edition of the song I was writing about based on the (microfilm of the) manuscript, because the most recent previous edition was from the mid-nineteenth century and possibly not based on the manuscript. The reviewer was like "APPENDIX WTF??" because apparently they missed that I said no one had worked on the song since 1910, but also because... I failed to indicate in any way that it was my own edition from the manuscript.
Oops.
Anyway, time for other work now. Later this week I will throw myself upon advisor R's mercy as far as addressing this repetitiveness issue. Perhaps I'll also ask the journal editor if I can extract any clarifications or further suggestions from the reviewer.
Edited to add: It appears I'm trying to work out who my reviewer might be. It appears I have a few ideas, actually, although of course there's no way to confirm them.
This entry was originally posted at http://monksandbones.dreamwidth.org/724294.html. Talk to me here or there, whichever you prefer.
On the downside, I was sort of hoping that the reviewer would be a little more specific in how to address some of the structural problems. One comment I've had from almost all the outside readers who have looked at my work (not just this article) in the past couple of years is that my writing/arguments are repetitive, which is a fair comment, but I'm not sure how to fix it. I was hoping for some suggestions about structure, dammit!
Some of the other suggestions, however, are kind of exciting. And then there's the one about my appendix, which is my edition of the song I was writing about based on the (microfilm of the) manuscript, because the most recent previous edition was from the mid-nineteenth century and possibly not based on the manuscript. The reviewer was like "APPENDIX WTF??" because apparently they missed that I said no one had worked on the song since 1910, but also because... I failed to indicate in any way that it was my own edition from the manuscript.
Oops.
Anyway, time for other work now. Later this week I will throw myself upon advisor R's mercy as far as addressing this repetitiveness issue. Perhaps I'll also ask the journal editor if I can extract any clarifications or further suggestions from the reviewer.
Edited to add: It appears I'm trying to work out who my reviewer might be. It appears I have a few ideas, actually, although of course there's no way to confirm them.
This entry was originally posted at http://monksandbones.dreamwidth.org/724294.html. Talk to me here or there, whichever you prefer.