Research during Covid Lockdown

[jerseyjay]

During the Covid lockdown of 2020, I wrote an article that I have been trying to get published. (I am a historian.) So far it has been rejected by three journals. The first two journals rejected it rather quickly, claiming it was not a fit for their journal but saying that they thought it should be published somewhere else. The third journal sent it out for a full peer review, with two reviewers. One reviewer said that they saw merit in the piece but that it would need to be significantly reworked and rewritten. The second reviewer, true to form, wrote a one-paragraph review saying that they didn't think that the piece fit the scope of the journal and said nothing in particular about what the article did say. The journal editor seems open to treating this as a revise and resubmit, although the revisions will probably need to be extensive.

I have articles rejected before, and I am not upset with this situation. I am trying to decide whether it is worth making the revisions, since my research has moved on in the last year. I do not need this article for tenure (I've just got a book published); I had fun writing the article, and the work that went into researching the article was also useful in preparing for a class that I taught.

To be honest, I do not think that the draft article was my best work, and I think that much of this was due to the Covid situation. Not in the sense that when I was writing it I was regularly hearing sirens of ambulances taking people to the hospital, or that I had to write it with the frustration of being stuck at home all the time. While I am sure this did not help, the main problem was that I had to frame the paper in such a way as to be able use sources that were available, without access to most libraries or archives. In its scope and sources, it is probably weak as a history paper. (I may end up shelving this article and then fold it into another paper, when the needed libraries and archives are open again.)

I don't expect anybody to give me any feedback about an article they haven't read. My question is, has anybody else had a similar situation, in that your research done during the Coronavirus just isn't as good as your other research? Or I am just making excuses for a bad paper?

[Hegemony]

I think most of us were too distracted, or worse, to do our best work during the pandemic.

That said, you've got a considerable amount invested in this already; I'm sure it's a much shorter path to publication to revise this one than to start from scratch on a new one. And getting tenure doesn't mean you should start coasting and quit thinking about getting publications out there.

[Hibush]

The word from journal editors is that a lot of people spent time in the lockdown writing up their second-tier work. They are rejecting a lot of the higher volume of submissions. I suspect you need an especially good hook to get attention this year.

Is the scope issue one you can address in the cover letter? With my first choice journals, I usually provide my rationale in a way that emphasizes the journal's priorities. For instance, that this paper reports an exciting new development that builds on a highly cited paper that I published in the same journal a couple years ago. That sentence explicitly provides prima facie evidence that the scope is right. It also implies unsubtly that this article will also be highly cited, which is good for the journal's reputation. It is fine if the present manuscript builds on someone else's recent landmark paper in the same journal, or a series of articles on a particular topic.

[Parasaurolophus]

I dunno that I'd shelve it, since then it could be an indefinite shelving. As long as it's nothing to be ashamed of, and as long as you think it holds together well enough without the major revisions suggested, I'd just send it elsewhere, maybe to a second- or third-tier journal.

That way it does some work for you now, and you can always return to it and produce a wholly new version for publication later, if you want to put in that work. Besides, nobody expects your work to be totally top-notch when in it's in a T3 journal, but it still works to establish your expertise in te area.

[jerseyjay]

Thanks for the reply. I guess I was asking two questions.

The first was, should I drop this article. I don't really expect anybody to be able to answer this without reading it. I do not plan on stopping research once I get tenure; at the same time, I do not feel the same pressure to publish everything as soon as I can. (I don't actually have tenure, but I believe I exceed the expectations for research.) I do foresee continuing to publish, but also having the time to make sure that I get articles in the state I would like them to be in before publication.

I do not think I am going to drop the article, because I have sunk quite a bit of time and effort in it, and the fact that it got an R&R indicates that somebody sees some merit in it. I think I will need to revise it, but I have not yet decided whether I will go the route suggested by the reviewer (massive revisions) or do more minor revisions and send it off to another journal, which is what I think Parasaurolophous is suggesting. I don't expect anybody to be able to answer that.

In my 18 years since getting my doctorate, I have only dropped one article entirely. After I submitted it to two journals and it got roundly rejected by both, I figured it wasn't worth continuing with it. Unlike the more recent article, which reviewers at least took seriously as a piece of scholarship, nobody liked the other article. Besides that, every article I have ever written has ended up published, somewhere, in some form.

The second question I was asking was, did people think that research done during the lockdown was worse than they would have "normally" done? I think this is what Hibush indicated. To borrow from another context, neither the set nor setting over the past year and a half was particularly conducive to good research, especially if, as in a discipline like history, research usually requires archival and other sources not available in 2020. Without archives, my work has tended to focus much more on textual and literary analysis, which is not usually the focus of traditional historical scholarship.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I have abandoned a few papers over the years because the peer review process revealed serious problems that I couldn't fix. If I had a paper like OPs that was ok/good but not great, then I'd probably go through the motions to publish it, even as an advanced assistant who doesn't really need an extra pub. If nothing else, it will generate citations and count towards annual review.

The research I got done during the pandemic has been fine, as I haven't needed a lab or access to the field to do my work (although I have some new projects underway that would benefit from travel). I've also published well, although those pieces that have been published during COVID were mostly underway before the pandemic.

[sinenomine]

I just submitted an article that corrects an error in one published last year to the same journal in which the first one appeared and it was rejected for fit, but the editor suggested some other journals, and it's now under consideration at one of them.

I've also been using the time away from campus to put together articles for which I had gathered the resources but hadn't yet written. While a lot of my work requires archival materials, libraries have been great about digitizing them, either for open access or for a fee. And fellow researchers in my area, scattered around the world, have put together an informal but symbiotic network of folks who are willing to look up information in their personal libraries to fill in what's currently inaccessible for others.

[jerseyjay]

During the pandemic, libraries and archives have been very helpful, which digitizing books and journals, and also parts of archives. And, before ILL was back running, many people and libraries were very helpful in obtaining sources. One nearby public library--a research library in its own right--has made it possible for cardholders to access digital sources, including newspapers. I don't think I would have been able to have written anything without all this help. Nonetheless, it does not substitute for plopping myself in an archive, and going through folder after folder. Or sitting in front of a microfilm reader and reading years' worth of a newspaper.

[AvidReader]

I also do a lot of archival work, and my research has definitely been suffering from COVID. My only workable strategy has been to map out my arguments and write the sections that I can write with my existing photographs and any available secondary sources and resources, and then to keep a meticulous list of things I need to research or complete, grouped by source type (secondary, database, archival) and then--for archival material--by library. It is frustrating to be in the early stages of this project, because there are primary sources I just can't access, but I am grateful that I don't need to produce much at this point--I think that in your situation I would be inclined to set the article on the back burner and look at it again when I had better access, but I'm also a much more junior scholar.

AR.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think I will need to revise it, but I have not yet decided whether I will go the route suggested by the reviewer (massive revisions) or do more minor revisions and send it off to another journal, which is what I think Parasaurolophous is suggesting.

Yeah, that was it. Given what you describe, I'm not sure I'd have the energy for the major revisions (tempting as I find it to just take the R&R and run with it).

The second question I was asking was, did people think that research done during the lockdown was worse than they would have "normally" done? I think this is what Hibush indicated. To borrow from another context, neither the set nor setting over the past year and a half was particularly conducive to good research, especially if, as in a discipline like history, research usually requires archival and other sources not available in 2020. Without archives, my work has tended to focus much more on textual and literary analysis, which is not usually the focus of traditional historical scholarship.

Not at all. I think I've managed a lot of really high-quality work. And being at home so much gave me a chance to really focus on increasing the quantity of my output (until the hatchling arrived). I think I really came into my own, research-wise, in the last two years. (The hatchling has set some limits on quantity and quality both, however!)

That said, my work doesn't typically rely on archives or other materials not housed online. (Every once in a while it does, because I'm pretty scrupulous about chasing down evidence, but it's pretty rare.) If it had, I'm sure it would have been a different story entirely.

[The Future]

As you stated, we have not read it, but....Myabe it could be even better as a book chapter or conference presentation.  Maybe it could be better as a collaboration with another author for a journal article submission. 

[Wahoo Redux]

I just posted a new thread very much along these lines, not realizing Avid Reader was also thinking the same sort of thing.

I'm a FT NTT with a spouse sporting tenure and probably not going on the market any time soon, if ever (unless the worst happens to our uni, which it doesn't seem like it will...yet), and so publications make little difference to anything but my own sense of self-worth. 

I'm going to try and power through the revisions, some of which jump the shark if you ask me, because I want my ideas out there.  This was, incidentally, a text which I had shelved for several years.  And right behind it are two long-shelved pieces that I am going to try and fix-up.

I thought the lack of a commute and access to online material would boost my productivity during the pandemic-----but it didn't somehow.  I'm not sure why.  I think it had something to do with retreating into a protective shell.

I wish I had better advice and insight.  I'd do the revisions and work your article up to speed, but that's just me.  Good luck.

[jerseyjay]

In regards to productivity during the Covid times: If you measure productivity in terms of drafts written and submitted to journals, I think that my productivity did increase. From March 2020 till July 2021, I wrote five articles (including the one I discussed earlier) that have been submitted for peer review.

One is for an edited collection that I am co-editing. After several rounds my co-editors and I are happy with it, and it is currently being peer reviewed by a publisher. I should note that most of the research for this was done before the lockdown, and I wrote it in the early period of the lockdown.

The second is in many ways closer to literary criticism than history. It has gone through two desk-rejections and is now being peer reviewed.

The third is the article mentioned earlier, was desk-rejected several times and recently received an (extensive) revise and resubmit.

The fourth is an expansion of some of earlier published research with some new twists (and written in a different language). It is currently undergoing peer review.

The fifth is more of a traditional historical article, although much of it is based on newspaper articles available online, and a few number of archival sources of which I was able to get digital copies. It is currently under peer review.

So for my tenure file, I have been quite productive. (The long periods of peer-review is, alas, normal for history, although perhaps somewhat longer now.) This comes on top of a book and several articles published in the four years before the Covid period, so I think I meet the publication requirements at my school.

But of course productivity is defined by acceptances, not just submissions (although obviously there is a relation between the two). And as I've said earlier, I am not sure if much of what I have written since March 2020 is as good as the stuff I've written earlier--and I think this is because of both the "set and setting" of Covid.

Of course, I have a tendency to second guess myself, so it is possible all of what I have written will be acceptable, sometime, in some form.

As an update on the piece I discussed early. I reread it, and while I think there is some merit in the reviewers' comments, I also think they are sort of overwrought. They point to ambiguity and confusion in my prose, but I am not sure if it will require the major revisions they indicate. But I am not sure if want to resubmit to this journal or find another one.

More broadly on productivity and Covid: I found my productivity (in terms of writing produced) fluctuated. From March 2020 through July 2020, my productivity soared. For various reasons, I did not have to worry about day care, and my wife was largely somewhere else. I was teaching asynchronously, and I basically stayed at home and read and wrote. This might not have been the best time mentally for me, but I sublimated whatever issues into work. Other people I know, who had work and family issues, were much less productive.

From August 2020 through December 2020, I was teaching synchronously, my wife and children were back, and I produced much less. I was probably happier for various reasons, but less productive. But I still was working on some stuff, but at a slower pace.

From January 2021 through July 2021, the situation (being at home, not seeing students, Zoom, the resurgence of Covid, etc) weighed more heavily on me, and felt less and less motivated to write anything. I did finish up the last of the articles.

In August, I have been working on a few ideas, but don't feel motivated. But to be honest, I never feel motivated in the "dog days" of summer anyway.  I have been going to the library, however, so my work is now able to make more use of archival sources.