The Editor's Department: The Finality of Decisions: Revisiting Editorial Review (And Some General Lessons)

Early on in my tenure as editor, I would probably not have dared to write a column such as this, but now with my term a little more than half over and feeling therefore that I am at least halfway towards understanding this job, I am somewhat emboldened by my experiences. Thus, I pick up here on some discussion by one of my predecessors, Sarah G. Thomason, editor from 1988–1994, in her Editor’s Department column from the June issue of 1991 (Language 67.2.428–31).

In that column, as part of a general consideration of the overall editorial process, she addresses the following question: ‘if you [i.e. a submitting author] feel strongly that the [editor’s] decision was a mistake, what should you do?’. What follows are my views on the matter, together with some more general musings that—to my mind at least—form a fairly natural pendant to a consideration of this question.

A bit of background first is in order. As a glance at the editor’s annual reports, published in recent years in the June issue, reveals, only somewhat less than 20% of the papers submitted to Language are accepted (counting revise-and-resubmit decisions as negative, since not all go on to publication and not all are revised and resubmitted). Therefore, in any given year, of the roughly 120-plus authors with papers under review with the journal,¹ some 80% (close to 100 scholars) will be disappointed by the outcome of the editorial review process.

While I make every attempt to ensure that the process is fair and that all authors receive substantial and substantive commentary on their papers, from me, from the associate editor involved with the paper, and from the referees, quite understandably some authors are not pleased with a negative outcome. Of those who choose to share any reaction to the outcome with me, most take it well. Those who comment at all on the process seem to appreciate the level of feedback, often acknowledging that the process brought out flaws in their argumentation or their presentation that they either had been aware of but did not consider fatal or did not know about but now can fix (whether for Language if there was an invitation to resubmit a revised paper, or for some other venue).

Relatively few authors have complained, for which I naturally am grateful, and most complaints focus on the length of the process. I have addressed elsewhere the process itself and the matter of time-to-decision,² so let me turn here to the outcome of the process and the question of whether my decisions are final. In particular, can they be revisited or even reversed? The answer on both counts is a qualified yes: my main interest is in fairness to authors but also in ensuring that Language continues to be a leader in publishing high quality research papers, and, more generally, in promoting first-rate research in our field at large. To those ends, but particularly the first, it is essential that I be prepared to reconsider a case. Clearly, though, I can’t reexamine every decision I make. Thus the review process is structured so as to guarantee that each paper gets a fair hearing the first time around.

Opinions are sought from experts in the area(s) and/or language(s) a submitted paper addresses. These opinions, in the usual case, pass through the interpretive filter of an associate editor, who also gives a personal assessment of the paper, and then come to me.³ Authors often worry about biases on the part of referees working against them; however, individual referees do not make or break a paper. I see the referees as advisory to the associate editor and both the referees and the associate editor as advisory to me, so that any one review is just part of the overall assessment process (I also read all papers carefully myself, of course); moreover, as part of the interpretive work by the associate editors, they inform me of any considerations they know of that affect...