Zoë Lang’s Guest Blog: Musicological Dear John Letters

January 4, 2008 at 2:40 pm 3 comments

When I first announced to one of my (non-academia) friends that I had at long last landed a tenure-track job, he noted that at long last, I could relax for a bit.  ‘Not at all!’ I replied, ‘Now it’s only five years until tenure review!’  Indeed, it is difficult to forget that getting the job, a formidable challenge, is the first of many steps.  I suspect that I am not the only early career scholar concerned that when I have to present my case, my publications will fall short of the mark.  My lack of success so far at getting my work published has done little to abate this anxiety.  I would like to take this opportunity to share the headaches that I have run into to date.  Unfortunately, I cannot offer any panacea, as my work has not yet graced the pages of a journal.  Since misery loves company, though, perhaps you, gentle reader, can find solace in knowing that you may not be the only one unpublished – and that lack of prolificacy may not be wholly your fault.

The benefits of submitting my work to a journal, I thought, far outweighed the possibility of a negative outcome.  Ideally, of course, the article would be accepted and after a few harried corrections, it would be published.  Alternatively, I might be asked to revise and resubmit, thus strengthening my submission when it actually appeared in print.  Even if my work were rejected outright, I would still get valuable reader comments so that my article would be better for the next attempt at publication.

My utopian view of journal publication was quickly shattered after the first journal rejection.  Editor #1 offered only potentially deprecating comments about my work with little helpful feedback.  The opening line, stating that the article was ‘pedantic yet supposedly well researched,’ inspired little confidence that this editor had taken my work seriously.  Editor #2 was less vitriolic, stating that the article was an interesting one, but not musicology.  To this day, I am still not sure what this comment means.  Certainly my work is closer to cultural history, but I would not classify it as outside of the discipline entirely.  At any rate, a lesson was learned: research the journal more carefully prior to submission.

For the second attempt at publication, I made several amendments to the article, taking out the section analyzing the piece (which Editor #1 of Journal #1 had found extraneous) and toning down some of the more speculative sections.  I also had a colleague read it over prior to submission, hoping that a new set of eyes might provide a better perspective.  Off it went, only to be rejected five months later.  This time around, according to the reader, I had not provided a sufficient political context for the piece – a comment that struck me as odd since much of the article argued against politicization until a far later date in its reception history.  A quick glance at the editorial board clarified the comment.  One of its members has done work examining the politicization of music that overlaps with the time and place I discuss.  Another lesson learned: along with researching the journal, consider precisely who will be asked to assess the article.

One of my mentors from grad school pointed out to me at this point that three journal rejections was a bad sign.  Her practical sagacity was undoubtedly true, but I felt that another round of revisions and the advice of another colleague, this time around the article was stronger than ever.  It was more concise, less speculative, and presented a clearer case.  Furthermore, the complaint of pedantry leveled against it by Editor #1 of Journal #1 had been addressed.  The venue for publication I had chosen was headed by a scholar who had long advocated for cultural context in musical studies; even more promising was that his scholarly interests matched the time and place as mine.  I optimistically attached the revised article and sent it off via email.  The editorial assistant assured me that a decision would be made about the article within three months by the editors and if viewed as a potential match for the journal, then passed along to outside readers for assessment.

Imagine my surprise seven months later when the article was rejected outright because it was not what the journal is looking for at this moment.  No additional feedback was provided.  This situation was my dystopia of publication, the absolute antithesis of what I had imagined when sending out this article a year and a half prior.  After receiving the rejection I asked the editorial assistant if there was any chance at getting some more concrete feedback.  I’m still waiting.

My impassioned Facebook status about the situation garnered the sympathy of friends in academia.  One bemoaned that her article had been rejected on no concrete grounds (in fact an editor had commented that it was quite good) but likely because her topic was unfashionable.  A social scientist produced statistics demonstrating that a mere 0.6% of articles submitted to the most prominent journal in his field were accepted.  Another agreed with my assessment that the journal had behaved in a socially unacceptable manner, adding language that would likely be rejected by most academic journals.  In short, I was not the only one.

The challenge and worries still remain.  I have another article that I hope to submit soon, but conflicting comments from my mentors (one loved it, one did not find it convincing) have me concerned.  If my story demonstrates anything, it is that handing the right article to the right person at the right time can ensure publication, but many factors can derail the process. To paraphrase the rejection email sent by journal #3: it’s not me, it’s them.  Such an answer, though, does little to alleviate concerns that without publication, there will be no tenure.  Or maybe it is me…

Advertisements

Entry filed under: musicology, professional development.

Sarah Gerk’s Guest Blog: Musicological Wish Lists Gina Rivera’s Guest Blog: An American in Paris

3 Comments

  • 1. Ryan Banagale  |  November 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Thanks for so openly sharing your experience, Zoe. I’m sure many people out there are relieved to know they are not alone in the article publishing gauntlet.
    The statistic on the the social science journal is particularly interesting. If my math is correct, only 1 out of every 166 submitted articles get published in that particular journal. I would be surprised if that were the case for JAMS, our “most prominent journal.” That would mean that almost 500 musicological articles would have to be submitted for each 3 article issue of JAMS. Social Science (as a field) is either significantly larger or has significantly less publication options.
    The nice thing about our field (this is a debatable point) is that there are numerous publications options and hopefully we all eventually find the right place for the presentation of our work. Good luck!

  • 2. Ryan Ross  |  November 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    I wonder to what extent the difficulty of getting published in certain journals is tied to the area of research of an author. I’ve noticed a few cases now where people with papers addressing topics/repertoires/issues rarely covered have been granted opportunities to present at National AMS meetings, whereas those exploring more “crowded” areas such as Josquin studies or German Romanticism find it more difficult to have their papers accepted. I know the AMS committees try to accept a certain number of papers per area. I’m thinking that a person who studies, say, Jan Dismas Zelenka, may play more into the diversity consideration than someone who seeks to submit a Beethoven paper. In the latter case, you may be up against some stiffer, more crowded competition regardless of the angle you take or the quality of your work. Maybe many journals (especially JAMS) function the same way?

  • 3. Avior Byron  |  November 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    I am a bit surprised from your experice with publishing. I was also rejected several times, but usually the explenation was satisfactory for me. When I felt that the reviewer was not fair so I complained to the editor and the article was reviewed once more by a different reviewer.

    It is important to know where to publish. Asking advice from experienced scholars can sometimes help.

    You might find the following post that I have written useful:
    http://www.bymusic.org/blog/2008/05/write-good-texts-about-music.html


About

Amusicology is an online forum for musicologists, academic or otherwise. Although Ryan Raul Banagale and Drew Massey are its founders and chief contributors, we welcome guest submissions. Please let us know if you would like to contribute a guest posting. Comments are always welcome and encouraged!

Please bookmark us or add our RSS feed.

Bookmark and Share

Twitter: Amusicology in 140 Characters or Less!

Archives



%d bloggers like this: