how "good" before submitting to editors?

[rabbitandfox23]

Hi all,

Just curious to hear what everyone thinks about how good an article needs to be for submission to a journal vs. editor of a volume (both peer-reviewed).

Somehow I get the feeling that journal submissions are usually very polished in argument and prose at the stage of submission, but that there can be some lingering items when one submits a draft to an editor of a collection of essays based on a conference.

For those of you that have edited books -- did most of your contributors submit near-perfect drafts, or did they take advantage of the possibility that the back-and-forth editorial process between author and editor would eventually iron out any kinks? 

An impetus for this question is that I'm overdue on submitting a contribution to a volume -- not that it's not written and done, but because I'm trying to get it as close to publishable before I submit... am I being too perfectionist?

[Morden]

Hi Rabbitandfox23, I think it's unlikely that an article or a book chapter will be accepted as is. There is always back and forth between authors and editors. So the point isn't to get it perfect in either case; you want to get it good enough that the editor will spend time on it. If the chapter is overdue and it's written, send it in.

[the_geneticist]

It should be a complete version and not have any comments in the margins like "find the so-and-so article" or any missing sections/analysis.  Also, have at least one peer proof-read it for grammar, spelling, etc.  Your goal is complete & edited, not perfect.
I only know of one example of someone who had an article accepted "as is" with no modifications and it only happened to her the one time.  She is a fantastic writer & scientist, but even so, most reviewers still asked for additional analysis/comparisons/context on her other manuscripts.

[research_prof]

Just my 2 cents based on my experience so far: papers that I fret too much about are usually rejected, while papers that I submit without too much second thoughts typically do better.

[rabbitandfox23]

Thanks everyone!

@researchprof: interesting, but seems almost counterintuitive - what do you attribute that to?  I  would think that overthinking to a fault is still better than undercooked!

[research_prof]

Thanks everyone!

@researchprof: interesting, but seems almost counterintuitive - what do you attribute that to?  I  would think that overthinking to a fault is still better than undercooked!

Honestly, I have no clue. It might be the universe trying to tell me that I need to chill.. who knows...?

[traductio]

As a masochist who has edited four collections, I say, please, please, if there's a style guide, follow it! I once had to convert 100+ non-automatically-inserted endnotes to Chicago author-date style. It was miserable.

Beyond that, though, I never expect perfection, but if you send me "good," I've got a lot more to work with. Perhaps that's the way to think of it -- your editor's feedback will be better if what you send is better, but nothing's perfect.

[jerseyjay]

I don't think that there is a fundamental difference  in terms of a draft submitted to a journal vs. a draft submitted for an edited collection (vs. a book manuscript). No first (or second) draft is perfect. But, in terms of style: you should make sure it confirms more or less to the specified style, that you have made sure it is in the correct format, that it is written in correct English, and that it has been spell-checked.

In terms of substance: you should have done all the research you want to do (or think is necessary); you should have explored everything you want to explore; and you should make sure that it is the best you think it can be at the current moment given your knowledge and effort.

In other words, you want the peer reviewers or editors to read your best work. Of course, based on the peer review, you may make significant changes. And based on the copy editor, it may need substantial revisions. But if you look at it and you see obvious changes, you haven't put it in enough effort.

Having been a peer reviewer, an editor of a volume, and a copy-editor, I do not appreciate getting copy that obviously need work.

[Parasaurolophus]

IMO the standards are the same.

But I'll echo taductio: for a volume, absolutely make sure it conforms to the style guide. Pay very close attention to the citations, and check them against the indicated manual and style sheet. It takes tens of hours per article for a copy editor to fix that shit, and I'm not even joking. They won't be able to fix anything else. It's a nightmare.

[Hegemony]

I echo that it's a nightmare. Follow the style guide, and check everything. Like, even check that your bibliography is actually in alphabetical order.

But my view is that your piece should be as good as you can make it, within reasonable human limits, of course. Sure, many editors and reviewers may have suggestions. But if your piece is  too rough, they'll just reject it. And many collections have deadlines, and can't afford the time to send the article back and forth between you with suggestions and revisions. If it comes in needing a good deal of work, the editor will just be annoyed and tempted to reject it altogether.

And remember that you're not just placing one article: you're making an impression on an editor. If one article comes in polished and needing hardly any revision, and another article comes in needing considerable revision, which author is going to impress the editor more? When the editor wants to invite an author to be in another collection, or to collaborate on a grant, or to be flown in and give a talk, which author will that editor pick? You want to be the author the editor thinks of first: "I know that [author] does a great job — that's who I'll invite."