Very assertive journal editor - is this normal?

[DogBarman]

I submitted a piece to a journal last year which was blind-reviewed by peers, then returned to me. The reviewers suggested substantial changes, but I understood their suggestions and found them quite helpful, so I was easily able to submit a revised version. This was six months ago.

The journal editor has now returned to me with his/her own 'edits' - however these are quite extreme, perhaps even more so than the original peer feedback. What particularly bothers me are his/her comments about how my overall argument doesn't work, with no suggestion of how I should change it. This article is an adaptation of a chapter from my PhD, and none of my committee brought up these problems. I have been given two weeks to essentially re-rewrite the article.

As a recent PhD graduate, I admit I am new to the peer review process. Is this all normal practice?

[traductio]

That would be unusual in my field (communication). I've had editors-in-chief make unwelcome changes, which is frustrating enough (I'll never submit there again), but what you describe goes well beyond anything I've seen.

Are the editor's comments at all useful? Except for the sunk time costs, I'd consider pulling it and submitting it elsewhere, if they're not.

[DogBarman]

About half of the edits are useful on a straight-forward level - e.g., use a different word here; there is some slippage in how you use this term, please clarify; you should cite XXXXX here; etc.

What are frustrating and confusing are comments that say "What is your point here?" directed at what I see as concise, easily-understandable summaries of my point in a particular paragraph or section. Equally, "I don't think you can conclude that from this example" is a very frustrating comment, as it implies coming up with a different conclusion, a different example, or a new way of linking one to the other - all of which seem like a little much as this point in the process.

[Morden]

What point in the process is the manuscript? If you were asked to revise and resubmit, it hasn't been accepted yet. The editor wants this piece (or they wouldn't have bothered offering feedback), but they still have concerns. You have to decide if you want to continue working towards acceptance here or if you want to withdraw. Do you have a peer you could share the manuscript and comments with?

[Wahoo Redux]

You've got a pretty aggressive editor.  That may not be bad.  Remember that as high as the bar for a doctorate is, usually the bar for professional academic publishing is ever higher.  I remember one reader's comment when I first started submitting "sounds a bit dissertationy" and wondering how hu knew---now that I've been writing for a while and actually been a reviewer I totally get it.  In a couple of years you'll go back and read your diss and see the difference.

Decide if you think your aggressive editor is helping.  I have always appreciated readers' reviews and think they've made my stuff much better.  If your editor is not helping, withdraw.

[jerseyjay]

It is hard to say whether the editor's comments are justified without reading your submission. I think that there are two possibilities, both of which I have experienced.

One is that you have an editor who likes to change things for the sake of changing things, requires unnecessary changes, and has a particular style he or she prefers even if other styles might be appropriate. He or she might also not understand the overarching argument of your piece, or parts of it. If this is the case, you need to make a determination if it is worth going on. Is the journal prestigious enough that it would help you to be published in it (as opposed to somewhere else)? Can you humor the editor and make the changes without doing enough violence to your piece? Or spending the next two weeks doing nothing else?

The other possibility is that you actually have an editor who is taking his or her job seriously, and is editing your article. What you indicate could be weak arguments, or unclear arguments. It is possible that where he or she wrote "What is your point here," you are either engaging in rhetoric that does not advance your argument, or using jargon that does not add much, or are otherwise unclear or fuzzy. Many dissertations, and many academic articles, are poorly written, go around in circles, use too much jargon, etc. Also, often time what we write does not actually mean what we think it means.

If this is the case, then--in my opinion--you are lucky. The editor is thus trying to make your writing easier to parse and your argument clearer.  If this is the case, then I think you should follow what the editor says.

As I have said, without seeing your article, I have no idea which of these best describes your situation. And of course it is possible the editor is doing both.

My practical advice is to show your piece and the comments to somebody--perhaps your advisor, or a colleague, or even an intelligent layperson --and ask if they have merit.   

[Volhiker78]

This would be unusual in my field but I tend to think the Editor is trying to be helpful and strengthen your article as opposed to being just a pain in the ass. First off, I'd ask for an time extension past two weeks.  Propose a reasonable alternative like six weeks and say the current Covid situation has you pressed for time.  Then as others have suggested, ask a trusted colleague or two to help strengthen your arguments.  Sometimes, it is helpful to acknowledge alternative interpretations of your findings and indicate why you think your interpretation is preferred. 

Journal editors are busy.  If he/she simply hated your manuscript, he/she would have just rejected your resubmission.  Try to view it as positive that they have read your manuscript at all. Good luck. 

[Parasaurolophus]

Yes, ask for more time.

I've only had an "aggressive" editor once--both refs recommended acceptance, and the editor downgraded to R&R with lots of comments of their own. They were absolutely right to do so, however. I revised it, resubmitted it, and am awaiting a verdict any day now. But whatever happens, it's a much stronger paper now.

[DogBarman]

Thanks for your help, everyone - this forum is such a valuable resource for 'squishy' questions like this.

I will return to the editor's comments today with fresh eyes, and try to work out a strategy for addressing the more abstract edits while preserving the heart of my argument.

[traductio]

Thanks for your help, everyone - this forum is such a valuable resource for 'squishy' questions like this.

I will return to the editor's comments today with fresh eyes, and try to work out a strategy for addressing the more abstract edits while preserving the heart of my argument.

That is an excellent approach that will carry you far.

For what it's worth, I found the other commenters' idea that there are more generous ways to interpret the editor's comments valuable and certainly worth considering. My gut reaction might have been provoked by my own personal experiences. With books, though, I've found that editors who take their jobs seriously do in fact improve my work. I had to strip my second book down to the studs and build it back up again, and thank goodness for that.

[Ruralguy]

Keep a couple of versions of your paper going....one with the editors suggestions, one without.

With the "editor" version, try your best to make it work, even if you don't love it. Ask others how to make it work. Then submit it. See what happens.

[Puget]

In my experience there is a wide range-- Some editors are more involved and act as an additional reviewer, while some just sign off on whatever the reviewers say-- generally you at least want an editor to adjudicate disagreements among reviewers rather than being totally hands off, though too much can start to feel like they are interfering with the peer review process if they aren't experts on the topic.

I wouldn't worry too much about trying to interpret why the editor is doing this (though at a guess they know you are an early career scholar and want to give you a chance to improve your writing for publication, despite some problems with the manuscript, which is kind mentorship). Do you want it published in that journal? If so, you need to find a way to address the editor's comments, which doesn't necessarily mean you need to do exactly what he/she suggests. If the editor is suggesting something is unclear though, it probably is-- it is probably perfectly clear to you, but not to people who don't live in your head/aren't in your sub-specialty, and the editor needs you to write for the readership of the journal. So try to keep an open mind-- this will be the first of many such publishing experiences.

[delsur]

This happened to me with the very first journal article I published after my Ph.D. I was frustrated at the time but those editor and peer-reviewer comments were the best thing that happened to me. This may or not be the case here.

[youllneverwalkalone]

Thanks for your help, everyone - this forum is such a valuable resource for 'squishy' questions like this.

I will return to the editor's comments today with fresh eyes, and try to work out a strategy for addressing the more abstract edits while preserving the heart of my argument.

That is an excellent approach that will carry you far.

Indeed this is the right approach, OP.

If this is your first experience with peer review then it is quite possible that you perceive those editor's comments as being harsher or more abrasive than they really are. I definitely took reviewers' comments much more to heart when I was new to the publishing game than I do now.

In any case the important thing is to be pragmatic about it and it sounds you have learned that already.