Among the “occluded genres” in academic communication (see Swales 1996), the editorial decision letter and the reviewers’ feedback feature prominently. Novice scholars find it difficult to interpret the actual decision of the editor on the publishability of their submission, and find it hard to understand what revisions the reviewers are suggesting.

These difficulties happen for many reasons. To begin with, editors and reviewers have a difficult job in balancing the twin rhetorical pressures of being collegial but also judgmental. That is, they have to offer an assessment on the publishability of the manuscript, but do it in such a way that they don’t disrespect a (potential) colleague (as Flowerdew and Dudley-Evans 2002 point out). Eventually, their decisions and judgments are couched in so many qualifications and hedges that their perspective sometimes becomes unclear. On top of that, editors and reviewers are also pressed for time, as many of them do their service to journals without compensation. Therefore, they don’t get adequate time to elaborate on their comments. More importantly, an insider or expert knowledge is needed to interpret some of the decision categories and turns of speech related to reviews. Sometimes, one has to read between the lines to figure out the judgements and opinions that are not explicitly stated in the reviewer’s suggestions or editor’s decision.

For these reasons, it is always useful to consult a more senior scholar to help interpret the decision letter. It is also important not to make up one’s mind on the quality of the submission as soon as one reads the decision letter. Many scholars have found that reading the decision letter at a later time reveals opinions and statements they didn’t notice in the first reading. These new findings reveal to them that their prospects for publishing that article are not really bad after all. Since academic submissions involve a heavy investment of time and effort, are high-stakes for one’s professional future, and thus emotionally charged, it is understandable that some authors exaggerate the criticisms in their decision letter on the first reading.

It is also important to note that an editor’s decision can differ slightly from the opinion of the reviewers. In some cases, though the reviewers might be excessively critical or subjective in their opinions, the editor might over rule them and indicate hope for publishing that article with further revisions. Reviews are not always consistent in tone, length, or depth. Some reviewers may be eccentric in their response. The editor has the authority to resolve such divergences in quality and provide a more balanced interpretation of the responses. On rare occasions, though the reviewers may be enthusiastic, the editor might be more qualified in stating the options. In such cases, it is important to remember that the editor’s decision is final, even though some of the reviewers might have been more positive.

— Suresh Canagarajah

————————————————————

Flowerdew, J and T. Dudley‐Evans (2002). Genre Analysis of Editorial Letters to International Journal Contributors. Applied Linguistics, 23 (4), 463–489. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.4.463