In Search of Enlightenment: 25 Years of Academic Publishing: Some Reflections

25 years ago this year I began my PhD studies in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Bristol. It was also the first year I entered the world of academic publishing, having submitted my first paper to an academic journal (and having them swiftly reject it!) I thought I would offer some reflections on the past 25 year journey of academic publishing, limiting my focus in this blog post to publishing in academic journals.

I preface my comments by noting that the life of an academic is a privileged and blessed life. I am so fortunate to have the opportunity to make a living from the life of an engaged mind. But it is also true that a life engaged in the world of academic publishing has it’s share of anguish and anxiety, especially for early career scholars struggling to earn a living and get some employment stability. And this blog post was written with aspiring scholars/junior colleagues in mind. They might profit from hearing some of the experiences I have had on the “ups” and “downs” of journal publications.

While a graduate student I was desperate to get some of my work published and starting sending things out to journals. In hindsight this was premature. For the first two years the 2-3 articles I had submitted were based on graduate work in my MA studies. It was decent work for my courses and MA thesis, but not publishable research. All were rejected.

During my first year of the PhD program living in the UK I remember watching old re-runs of The Waltons, and identifying with John Boy and his struggles to get published as a writer. In my first year of the PhD program I saw the episode where John Boy gets his first publication, after enduring many rejections and disappointments. I found it an inspiring tale, and saw myself as an academic version of John Boy (i.e. a nerd’s nerd!). The first two years of publication rejections seemed like a decade to me.

While a first year doctoral student I also purchased a copy of the book (pictured above) Guidebook for Publishing Philosophy. I read every page of that book multiple times, going over the acceptance rate of the journals, the average time to acceptance/rejection and the circulation numbers of different journals. It was only in the second year of writing my PhD thesis that my ideas developed more fully into something that was publishable. And I started submitting parts of the PhD thesis to journals, now with success! I was very fortunate in that I did have 3 papers (here, here and here) from my PhD dissertation accepted for publication before my PhD defence in year 3 of the program (1999).

So when I first went into the job market in 1999 the fact that I had publications in hand really helped as the UK had a Research Assessment Exercise coming up in the next year or two and departments were looking for adding scholars with publications in hand that could help with their rankings. But even with those publications I took two fixed lectureship positions before landing a permanent position at Manchester University.

My own personal triumphs and stresses of journal publication have evolved and changed over the years. Prior to my first permanent appointment, and then tenure and eventually promotion to full professor, there were pressing careerist factors that weighed very heavily on my mind. “Publish or perish!” was certainly a mantra that I internalized early on as I wasn’t coming from a top ranked university or program. I knew that publishing was the only way to make some kind of name for myself in the discipline and (hopefully) land permanent employment.

Reflecting back on 25 years of persisting through the process of article writing, then submitting and waiting, then re-submitting, revising, etc. I think it is accurate to say it is not an easy process (at least for me!). Nor should it be. Unlike a blog post, where anyone can write and then hit “publish”, an academic journal has gatekeepers and stringent criteria for publication. Most submissions to a journal do not meet the criteria for publication. Even the top scholars in the world have their work rejected. One of the things that successful academics must learn to do well is to live with constant rejections of their journal submissions. This isn’t always easy to do! But some things (like one’s attitude and perception of the process) can help make it more palatable.

For me, given my personality, I have found that to persist and flourish with academic publishing I had to consciously cultivate a kind of paradoxical mindset. On the one hand, I needed to believe in myself, to have the confidence that my ideas and what I have written is worthy of being shared with others in a published journal format. We all have some self-doubt, and no paper addresses all the relevant literature/ possible objections, etc. But you have to make the judgement call as to when your ideas have been developed to a level when submitting to a journal is appropriate. Self-confidence and a willingness to risk rejection are needed.

So on the one hand ego (coupled with self-preservation and curiosity) plays a factor in getting you to submit things for publication in the first place. And yet, ironically, ego can also prevent you from submitting, or at least to better publication venues. If your ultimate goal is to avoid any journal rejections then there is foolproof strategy for achieving that- never submit an article for publication! You need some ego to motivate you into the publishing game, but not too much ego. I take some pride in being able to say that I have had my work rejected by some of the best journals in the world. For without that attitude I never would have submitted my work to the journals that eventually did publish my work.

Maintaining a sense of humility, with no sense of entitlement to have your work published in any particular journal, is also critical. At the same time you need to have the confidence, competence and perseverance to write, revise, revise again, go through editor desk rejections, split referee rejections, R&R rejections, etc. The narrative you tell yourself about your rejections is perhaps the most critical aspect of this process. You want to avoid characterizing yourself as a “victim” of unfair editorial or referee reviews. Conversely, you should be aware of the fact that a lot of luck and happenstance can come into play in the decision-making process. For some journals your paper might not be a good fit. What one editor considers “a timely and significant topic” the editor of a related journal considers “unoriginal and trivial”. One referee might have sympathy with the methodological premises of your argument(s) and yet another is ideologically opposed to your method or conclusions. What one assessor judges to be a “clear “ “original” and “interesting” contribution another assessor judges to be “unclear” “commonplace” and “unimaginable”. This is simply the way the journal gods blow. Try not to get too frustrated by this process. It is what it is.

Even now, over 20 years later, a journal rejection typically stings for a day or two. But then I move on and “let it go”, determined to improve the work and submit it to the journal that will also choose it as its home destination.

It is always good for junior scholars to seek out advice from different types and ranks of scholars. My own views are probably something of an outlier view. In my writing I prioritize what I WANT to write, with only secondary or tertiary consideration for the discipline, let alone journals, it eventually gets published in. This has its careerist risks, which fortunately for me haven’t been an obstacle to my career progression. But for most disciplines you write for a specific sub-field and the few journals that publish in that field. In such a case you may want to give some thought to which topics are “most relevant” “trendy”, etc. to increase your odds of success. I myself prefer to try pave a new direction or tackle neglected issues vs address what happens to be trendy and current in a field. But my interests and motivations are a bit out of the norm.

Persisting in academic publishing teaches one resilience, patience, persistence, humility and it can also adversely impact one’s emotional wellbeing and even mental health. The stakes are high, one’s career and familial financial security often relies on success in publishing (especially in the early stages of a career). Like most things in life, there are good aspects but also negative aspects. Keep your eyes open to both of them, self-awareness and insight are important.

A common mistake I often make is to be too forward-looking in my attitude towards publications. When I first started my career, and a paper was accepted by a journal I really took time to appreciate that good news and bask in the sense of achievement for a while. Unfortunately now I am typically too focused on the next project that I sometimes forget to stop to smell the roses. It is important to be present to the feelings of gratitude and achievement, they help sustain a scholar through the rejections and revisions.

My career ended up going in different directions from what I initially anticipated when obsessing with the Guidebook for Publishing Philosophy as a graduate student 25 years ago. But the book served me very well, showing me how important it is to do your research in advance, know which journals are a good fit and how long they take to review and what their prestige in a field is like.

Putting these rambling reflections together, I can distill 5 general bits of advice:

#1. Don’t ever have a sense of entitlement about publications- no journal owes you a publication. You hope that slaving away on a paper for months, even years, eventually results in a journal publication. It doesn’t always. But hopefully it does more times than not.

#2. Don’t take journal rejection personally. Rejections can sting, especially when split referee reports or after revise and resubmits. But understand this is part of the publication game. Lick your wounds and let it go. Holding on to bitterness and resentment about the process will cause you to have persistent negative emotional experiences with publishing and, eventually, you may stop submitting work to avoid those negative experiences.

#3. Have humility: critical feedback from editors and referees typically improves your work and is an important part of the process of developing as a scholar. Sometimes the negative reports are the most important kinds of feedback you get. Unlike your colleagues, friends or the like-minded scholars in your network, an anonymous referee might challenge premises or assumptions in your work that should be challenged. Judiciously responding to their concerns can make you a better scholar.

#4. Be present with gratitude and a genuine sense of accomplishment when publication success does come your way.

#5. Be sure to have other hobbies and interests: don’t make publishing the only focus of your life. Of course it is an important aspect of one’s career, even calling, but be sure to live a well balanced life. You need to be proactive in caring for yourself physically and mentally.

25 years ago I started down the path of trying to get my academic research published. The first two years did not yield any results, but I am happy to report that over the remaining 23 years I have had my work published in the following (30+) journals:

Public Health Ethics

Law and Philosophy

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

British Medical Journal

Journal of Political Science Education

University of Toronto Law Journal

Journal of Value Inquiry

Ratio Juris: An International Journal ofJurisprudence and Philosophy of Law

Politics (twice)

Journal of Applied Philosophy

American Journal of Bioethics (twice)

Bioethics (twice)