by Jennifer Lackey
The Women in Philosophy series is running a mini-series called “Ask a Senior Woman Philosopher.” The first installment was posted last summer. If you have a question for which you would like advice from a senior woman philosopher but don’t have someone to ask or don’t feel like you can ask the senior women philosophers you know, send your question to the series editor, Adriel M. Trott, at trotta [at] wabash [dot] edu. Questions will be anonymized and a suitable respondent found.
Question: Can I argue with editors about a decision / interpretation of a review? I received a review that seemed positive after an initial negative remark. The editor said “on the basis of this review” the journal was rejecting the paper. I thought the editor should have determined that the reviewer was offering a positive review, and the decision should have been to have me revise and resubmit, but the paper was rejected. Perhaps an important detail is that the reviewer made a categorical statement at the outset along the lines of “No one thinks this about x,” where x was the thesis that I was arguing for in the paper. “No one thinking it” does not seem to be grounds for a rejection if evidence and argumentation is provided in the paper to support the view. Are these reasons to contest a review or is that not really ever appropriate?
Thanks so much for these great questions!
The first point to note is that it is not uncommon for authors to disagree with both the reviews of their papers and the decisions made by editors of journals. Authors often feel misunderstood or uncharitably interpreted. But it would be a significant burden on the editors of philosophy journals if authors objected to decisions on their papers each time they felt that they were unwarranted. So, I would recommend that such challenges be reserved only for cases where you think the error is particularly egregious.
With this in mind, it is absolutely appropriate to write to an editor with a serious concern about a report and/or a decision. As an editor at both Episteme and Philosophical Studies, I’ve received a number of such e-mails over the years and I take each one very seriously. I fully recognize that both refereeing and editing are fallible processes, and I also appreciate that a single publication can quite literally be the difference between employment and unemployment for some of our junior colleagues. Because of this, I err on the side of caution. In most cases where a reasonable concern is raised about a report or one of my editorial decisions, I will offer to obtain an additional review of the paper. I find that authors have far more confidence in the process when their worries are appreciated and addressed, even if the paper is ultimately rejected after an additional round of review.
To be even more precise, here are some reasons that I have obtained an additional reviewer for a rejected paper: the author makes a case that the paper was seriously misunderstood by the referee; the author shows that the central objection raised by the reviewer was already adequately addressed in the paper; the author offers a compelling argument that the reasons for rejecting the paper are grounded in inaccuracy, bias, or a distorted reading; the author demonstrates that the reviewer was not competent to evaluate the paper, perhaps by revealing an insufficient grasp of the relevant issues or the current literature on the topic.
Despite this, because acceptance rates are very low at many journals in philosophy, submissions might be rejected by an editor even when referees explicitly recommend major revisions. I do this myself when the revisions are very extensive, when the submission would be a different paper after revisions, when the objections target the central theses of the paper, and so on. Editorial judgment is something that enters the picture, not only to avoid overburdening referees but also to provide an additional set of eyes on submissions.
Moreover, referees often include comments that are specifically for the editor and are not intended for the author. This happens when referees want to be more candid or harsh in their feedback, but don’t want to be unnecessarily cruel to an author. In such cases, editors might be acting on information that is not included in the report the author receives.
On this note, referees often try to say something positive about the paper in order to be encouraging and balanced in their feedback. This should not be interpreted as warranting acceptance. There can be excellent parts of a paper, even when the problems with it tip the scale toward rejection. In addition, the profession is a more supportive and welcoming community when we look for the worth in one another’s projects, not just the problems. So, we definitely want to encourage reviewers to highlight what submissions are doing well without this leading authors to conclude that they should be accepted.
Regarding your specific point that “No one thinks x” is not adequate grounds for rejecting a paper, there are two different questions I would ask. First, is it true that no one, besides you, defends position x in the literature? If not, then you can certainly follow up with the editor by citing others in the literature who have supported the view, especially if this seems to be one of the central reasons the paper was rejected.
If it is true, however, then it is important to ask why no one else has defended the view. I don’t think it is quite enough to simply provide reasons on behalf of x since there could be even more compelling considerations against it that explain why it hasn’t been endorsed before. So, it would be helpful to spend time motivating the project. Why are you writing the paper? Why is this important? Why is it valuable to defend position x?
Regardless of whether you follow up with this particular editor, it would be helpful to closely consider the referee’s comments and see if any of them would improve your paper. I have had a number of invited reviewers tell me that they refereed a submission for a previous journal and were disappointed to see that the paper was simply resubmitted elsewhere with no changes whatsoever. Many referees devote significant time and energy to their reports and offer feedback in the spirit of improving the submissions they review. So, while I don’t encourage authors to revise simply for the sake of revising, I do think that it’s helpful to thoughtfully consider whether papers should be revised on the basis of reviewers’ comments.
In general, I would encourage you to remember that reviewers and editors are trying to make the best decisions they can about submissions, and so they will often be responsive to reasonable questions and concerns.
Jennifer Lackey is the Wayne and Elizabeth Jones Professor of Philosophy at Northwestern University. She specializes in epistemology, with an emphasis on social epistemology. Lackey is Editor-in-Chief of Episteme, Editor of Philosophical Studies, and Subject Editor for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. She is also the Director of the Northwestern Prison Education Program. She is the recipient of numerous awards and grants, including the Dr. Martin R. Lebowitz and Eve Lewellis Lebowitz Prize for Philosophical Achievement and Contribution (2014-2015). For advice from Lackey geared more toward reviewers, check out her previous contribution to the APA blog here.
I think if the subject handled by the author was a common subject attempted by many, the criteria for assessing it should be the merit of presentation and style. But if the subject was a never heard proposition, editor here carry an utter responsibility too towards knowledge; here he could allow concessions on the merit of presentation and style and give all importance to presenting the subject to the world! Editors job is similar to that of obstriticians; here he is helping a new baby to come to world, a sacred work!
[…] a Senior Woman Philosopher.” The first installment was posted in August 2018, the second in December 2018, the third in January 2019 and the fourth in July 2019. If you have […]