How to Avoid Being Desk Rejected
///
There are many privileges of being a journal editor: being exposed to innovative new work, developing relationships with authors, and celebrating the contributions of junior scholars. One of the main downsides is needing to desk reject submissions. Based on my experience as (co)Editor-in-Chief of Surveillance & Society, here are some tips to clear the first hurdle of editorial review and avoid that dreaded desk-reject verdict.
Perhaps most obviously, the paper should have a strong, clear argument. There are many “how to” books out there (Wendy Laura Belcher’s Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks is one of the best), but a good rule of thumb is to have just ONE argument per article.
Beyond that, we look for explicit connections to the extant literature and concepts in the field (which in our case is the “surveillance studies” literature). It is good to consult recent journal issues for this and not depend too much on the classics.[1] This doesn’t mean simply citing the relevant people working on similar topics. It means describing ongoing conversations in the field and making a case for how your analyses further those conversations (e.g., by extending, correcting, testing).
Describe ongoing conversations in the field and make a case for how your analyses further those conversations (e.g., by extending, correcting, testing).
Rather than seeing this a box to check before moving on, often the best articles are those that weave their dialogue with others throughout the entire paper, from the initial framing, to the literature review, to the analyses, to the conclusion. So, even if citations to other people would occur mostly in the literature review section, the framing and paper development should be implicitly in conversation with those works throughout.
Karen Fang’s article “Cinema Censorship and Media Citizenship in the Hong Kong Film Ten Years” offers a superb example of how to join a scholarly conversation and make a contribution. In this piece, you can see right from the start that Fang has clearly read the relevant work in surveillance studies and is making a case for a specific deficiency (i.e., a lack of attention to cinema censorship and contexts of film circulation), which her article begins to correct. This is one model for how to frame your work so that it gets sent on to peer review, gets published, and gets cited. It is not the only model, of course, but it is a persuasive way to show that you are genuinely interested in dialoguing with others.
I would discourage authors from viewing this advice about building upon the work others as a “citation tax.” It’s actually just polite.
I would discourage authors from viewing this advice about building upon the work others as a “citation tax.” It’s actually just polite. As Wendy Belcher (2009) writes, “If you imagine your article as entering into a conversation, it makes perfect sense that you wouldn’t just walk into a room and start talking about your own ideas. If there were people already in the room, you would listen to them for a while first.” She continues, “If you decided to speak, you would do so because you agreed or disagreed with something someone else had said. If the conversation went on for a long time without addressing some topic dear to you, you might say, ‘I notice that we haven’t talked about such and such yet.’ In all cases, you would acknowledge the conversation and then make your point” (150–1).
///
If you’re looking for additional resources on how to avoid desk rejection and get published, here are some I recommend:
· Desk-Rejects: 10 Top Tips to Avoid the Cull
· 5 Ways You can Ensure Your Manuscript Avoids the Desk Reject Pile
· Writing for an Academic Journal: 10 Tips
· How to Get Published in an Academic Journal: Top Tips from Editors
· Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success
///
References
Belcher, Wendy Laura. 2009. Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Note: there is now a second edition.]
///
*Special thanks to Mark B. Salter and Surveillance & Society’s core editorial team for seeding these ideas.
[1] If you were interested in a comprehensive overview of the field, though, check out Surveillance Studies: A Reader.
