History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
The Power of Journals (Why Do We Let Them Have It?)
by Cliopatria
Here is a question for all of you academics: How do the journals justify (and why does the profession enable) their rule that one is only allowed to submit an article at one journal at a time? Why do they get, and why do we allow them to have, that sort of power over what is, after all, our work? Why can any particular journal claim de facto eminent domain over work that they are not able or willing to promise will result in a publication? Shouldn’t the free market of our ideas give us more leverage? Given how long it can take to go through the editorial process of getting an article published, this might be especially important for articles that are either timely or face competition. But why should it work this way? Imagine if you could submit to multiple journals – it would likely lead those who are junior scholars to have much greater understanding of where they ought to look to publish their work. There is a range of options for any historian, for example, and often times we end up settling, and almost immediately end up with the equivalent of buyer’s remorse. We find a journal that is perfectly cromulent (as Miss Hoover once said about the use of the word “embiggens” on the Simpsons) but perhaps not especially well known, they accept our article, and almost immediately we think “should I have aimed higher?” (This, of course, is why tenure committees, colleagues, and the like really ought to actually have to read our work rather than judge it on their perception of the quality of the journal, but that is another issue for another time). If anyone has any insight, or simply wants to add their two cents, I am sure many of us on the very junior end of the pole will appreciate it.
Hey Derek, if you don't like it, start your own journal. For people who call themselves academic but can't get published, such as yourself, they still have the petty blogs..........
In fact, yours and Luker's blogs are perfect examples of why the review process is so valuable. I for one am very happy that the review process has sent you two to the bottom of the barrels with blogs.
Derek Charles Catsam -
6/4/2005
Hey, Joey -- Ralph needs no one to defend himself, and you are probably not worth my time, but here's teh deal -- I do publish. Relatively extensively, in fact. I have not only several articles out, but books in the pipeline as well. That does not make the rule of submitting an article to one place at a time make any more sense.
You are a nimrod, seeing how you talk about things you do not know, and thus come across as a fool.
dc
Ralph & Rhonda --
I think the idea of not wanting to do unnecessary work is prbably a big concern, and is probably the right answer from their vantage point. Which would all be fine if, after all of that, they guaranteed that they would get back to you in a timely fashion and that the result would be positive. Whatever work goes into reviewing an article pales when compared with the work that goes into writing one.
I tend to thik that there is a lot of laziness inherent in the whole journal A is not that well known so let's be skeptical shortcut. We publish lots of things in lots of places for lots of reasons. has anyone seriously read an entire issue of what is probably our most respected journal, the AHR, lately? Some wretched, trivial stuff pollutes it. I'd give an eyetooth to be published in it, of course, but that is more careerist savvy than a reflection on what i value, which would always have me preferring the Journal of Southern History of Journal of Southern African Studies over AHR.
Ralph's right, of course, that law journals function differently (as do magazines, say, which is why freelancing is always so darned appeasling . . .).
dc
Rhonda Jenkins Armstrong -
5/23/2005
This seems to be the key issue. No editor wants to go to the trouble of finding three established scholars to review my article, wasting their time writing up what we would hope are considered reviews, if I'm just going to pull it at the last minute in favor of another journal.
As for tenure committees using journals as ad hoc evaluations committees, the MLA had some thoughts on that point in their last issue of Profession. Of course, the MLA has been worrying away at the "publication crisis" for a good while now, with no results.
Ralph E. Luker -
5/23/2005
Good question, Derek. As you may know, law journals do not operate this way. They assume that an article has been submitted to multiple places. I think the key to the difference is that law journals generally are edited by law school students, whereas history and other journals in the humanities and social sciences are edited by securely established scholars. The latter want to put a premium on the conservation of their energies and, thus, have established a concensus among journal editors that limits competition among journals for articles. It means that multiple reviews of the same article are not being done concurrently by multiple journals.
