Content: Methods, Data and Argument

Part III: Communicating with Journal Editors: Submission, Acceptance, Revision and Rejection – Chapter 7

7.3.3 Content: Methods, Data and Argument

This can be the most difficult of all kinds of criticism to deal with because it cuts at the heart of a paper. Language problems can contribute to problems with your methods, data and argument, and so can formatting, structural and referencing issues – it’s all one intricate weave, after all, just like that tightrope. In some instances, however, an editor (or reviewers) will detect more fundamental problems with the methodology of a study, the theories adopted, the data or analysis presented and/or the argument constructed by an author. It can take a careful and open-minded review of your own paper and research in relation to the critical comments you’ve received – a thorough critical self-assessment, as it were – to decide exactly how to interpret such criticism. Are the problems raised evidence that the editor’s perspective is simply far removed from your own and the journal just not the right fit? Or are they valid concerns about real shortcomings or flaws in your research that taken constructively could facilitate the improvement of your article in fundamental ways? If the first is the case, it would probably be best to submit your paper to a different journal: if you believe your research to be valid and valuable, it’s your responsibility to publish it despite disagreement. If the second is the case, then your paper almost certainly needs revision and it might be unethical to submit it to another journal without resolving the problems identified in the letter you’ve received.

Each case is unique, of course, and you will have to decide for yourself how best to proceed, ideally with some advice from one or more specialists in your field. Academic advisors and supervisors can be particularly helpful, and so can fellow students and colleagues, but ultimately the sorts of changes needed to resolve problems with methods, data and argument tend to be ones that only the author can choose and make. Sometimes it’s a matter of explaining more carefully key issues such as the relationships and controls considered in your study, or presenting more clearly the evidence gleaned from your research, or stating more explicitly the limitations and shortcomings of your approaches and data. In other instances you may need to clarify what is innovative and significant about your research to justify your methods and results: often ideas and approaches that move beyond conventional wisdom need to be stated more clearly and more often than one might expect. These matters overlap with language problems, and reflecting critically before you revise on both what you need to tell your readers and the language in which you share that information will often improve your paper immensely.

More fundamental are criticisms suggesting that the paper you’ve submitted is too preliminary or not a minimum publishable unit, which means that it’s not a complete study – it doesn’t quite tell the whole story needed for an original research paper, for instance – so you’ll need to develop your argument further before resubmitting, and perhaps provide additional evidence, whether you choose to stick with the same journal or not. Similarly critical of the overall argument of your study is the comment that your paper is ‘descriptive.’ Research papers necessarily describe procedures and observations, but they need to do much more than that, so to call a paper ‘descriptive’ is to suggest that the author has not used the data presented in the paper to develop a coherent argument – it lacks, for example, a hypothesis or thesis and a clear line of logic by which that hypothesis or thesis is tested through research and/or trials. This is the sort of problem that requires a return to the drawing board to rethink your purpose in writing and redesign your argument. Sometimes starting your paper again (cutting and pasting in the useful bits of information from your first version as necessary) is the best route in such cases. If the criticism you’ve received suggests that your data is either insufficient or unconvincing, or your experiments or means of analysis are flawed, or necessary controls are inadequate or absent, you’ll need to reflect on the nature of your methodology and results. Sometimes presenting the material differently can make a great difference, but this sort of criticism is an indication that you may need to repeat or restructure basic elements of your research.

In all decisions you make about revising the content of your paper you should carefully weigh your options with a focus on what is best for you and your work as well as for the journal in which you’d like to see your paper published. Seeking knowledgeable advice is vital and giving yourself enough time to digest the criticism offered by the editor and/or reviewers as well as to conduct a careful, objective review of your work is essential. If you decide to revise in order to resolve the problems identified in the letter you received and resubmit to the same journal, you can reply to the editor using the approaches I’ve outlined in the section on formatting, structure and referencing above (7.3.1). Explain in your initial reply that you’ve considered the criticism offered and describe how you’re planning to revise the content of your paper to resolve the problems identified. This may well involve explaining what you can’t change as well as what you can, so be sure to clarify and justify your reasoning regarding any noncompliance with the journal’s requests, remembering that you need to convince the editor and/or reviewers why your view on these points is a valid one. If you earn a conditional acceptance or reconsideration, you want to be sure that it’s been given on the basis of what you actually can do to meet the journal’s needs while maintaining the integrity of your research. That way, when you resubmit your paper, the changes you’ve made and explained again in your new covering letter will be expected and an indication of your ability to work effectively with the journal to achieve publication, rather than an unwanted surprise.

Persistence can reap rewards and is a necessary skill for an academic or scientist (or any other author) who wishes to publish his or her writing, but just as there are times when a particular publishing venue such as an academic or scientific journal has to be passed over in placing your work appropriately, so there are papers that may need to be abandoned, or perhaps completely reconceived and rewritten. A paper in which the editor (and perhaps the reviewers) of a reputable top-tier journal has found significant flaws is a good candidate for such treatment. Even this, however, is a form of progress and can be seen in a positive light. That same creative writing teacher who insisted on the primary importance of perspective always urged his students to move on to the next project because, as he asserted, an author tends to keep writing the same story again and again in various forms, and only by moving on to the next manifestation will he or she ever get that story (close to) right.

On a loftier note, Augustine of Hippo, a master of eloquence and pillar of the Western philosophical tradition, confessed in a letter that he endeavoured to be “one of those authors who write as they make progress and make progress by their writing,” and thus he welcomed criticism: “if I set down something with insufficient forethought or knowledge, it deserves to be condemned, not only by those who see it, but even by me.”[1] Given that about 5,000,000 of Augustine’s words still survive for us today and that his numerous texts have inspired lively debate and profoundly influenced authors, scholars and leaders for nearly 2,000 years, he may have a valid point. So the gold to be mined here is focus on your intellectual progress and keep writing!

[1] John Leinenweber, trans., Letters of Saint Augustine (Tarrytown, NY: Triumph Books, 1992), 148.

PRS Tip: We’d love to keep proofreading what you’re writing. If you (or your colleagues or students) are interested in our service and would like more information, please visit our website at http:// www.proof-reading-service.com.

The PRS team is more than happy to answer questions and provide any help you may need 24 hours a day from Monday to Friday.

You can reach us by email at
guest-posts[at]journal[dash]publishing[dot]com

or via the following phone number:
+44 (0) 20 31 500 431

When you send us your next document for proofreading, please use our drop box at
https://www.filemail.com/incoming/8403876189

This is a much safer way than email to submit work, although we will certainly accept documents by email if you prefer. Please remember that you can pay for our services (via Paypal or Sagepay) and print and download invoices and receipts through our payment portal. When you send us a document for proofreading, we’ll send you the login details with your confirmation email.

We hope to hear from you soon!