I submitted my paper to [big time journal]. Eight months later, I get a rejection plus a single short referee report. Par for the course, but still frustrating. Then I notice an additional humiliation: I take great pains in the opening section of my paper to clearly state that although people who hold [view A] also often endorse something like [thesis B], those who wholeheartedly promote [thesis B] often take their view to entail the rejection of [view A]. As I put it, my paper is about the conflict between the stark proponents of [thesis B], who see their view as opposed to [view A], and those who endorse [view A] and some version of [thesis B]. At the end of a paragraph, I express this not-so-complicated thought in a way that I believe is not only maximally clear, but catchy and concise.Good question.
Now here's the unbelievable part: My reviewer mainly criticizes my paper's set-up on precisely the point about [view A] and [thesis B]. That is, I am criticized for not seeing that whereas those who hold [view A] often endorse some version of [thesis B], those who are first and foremost advocates of [thesis B] often oppose [view A]! This suggests that the reviewer did not read the opening pages of my paper. However... in the course of (mistakenly) criticizing me for mucking up the A/B issue, the reviewer plagiarizes my maximally clear, catchy and concise statement of the matter, as if it were his/her own!!!
Remind me: Why do we bother with this, again?
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Adventures in Journal Publishing
This just came in from an old friend. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but we all know how debased the whole process is these days. Nonetheless, this seems a new low.