August 2006 // Volume 44 // Number 4
 |
 |
Dealing with Rejection
Abstract
"Dealing with Rejection" describes
a particularly sane and sensible response if your submission is rejected
by JOE or any other refereed journal. "August JOE" briefly
refers to just under half of the fine articles in the issue.
Dealing with Rejection
As I've said on this page before, JOE has really "raised the bar" and become more rigorous the last few years. This means that, thanks to the efforts of our reviewers, JOE has become a better journal--and I have to let more authors know that their submissions have been rejected. Rejection notices are hard to take, of course, but the experience of having a submission rejected by JOE reviewers can be at least as valuable as it may be unpleasant.
Why?
The answer is simple. It's a learning experience. When you read your reviews, you learn about your article's weaknesses and strengths from experts who have taken the time to take your article seriously and give you the benefit of their insights. This will help you write other, better articles in the future, and it could help you in the nearer term, too.
I recently had to notify an author that his article had been rejected by his reviewers and that I would be sending him copies of his reviews. Very soon after, I saw that I had received a reply. I winced, because authors sometimes take the opportunity to vent and express their disappointment and even anger at their submissions' rejection.
When I read his reply, though, I was relieved and impressed. Here's what the author said:
"That's a bummer! Thanks for the notice. We look forward to getting the reviewers' comments so our article may be strengthened and resubmitted to another journal."
What a sane and sensible attitude. If you should ever have a submission rejected by JOE or any other refereed journal, consider using your reviewers' insights to strengthen the article at hand and resubmitting it to another journal. You can learn a lot from rewriting, and your effort might well be rewarded.
August JOE
It goes without saying, I hope, that the August issue is another good one.
There's an interesting Commentary addressing "eight misconceptions" about the University of Minnesota Extension Service's response to major cuts in state funding. We have two articles, "Avoiding the 'Rut' in Program Development and Delivery: Improving Our Understanding of Learning Style Preferences" and "Emotional Intelligence: A Pathway to Self-Understanding and Improved Leadership Capacities," suggesting that "know thyself" is a good rubric for Extension professionals. The first two Ideas at Work articles describe outreach efforts to Hispanic dairy workers, and the first four Tools of the Trade articles are among eight articles dealing with youth outreach.
And the last Tools of the Trade, "Evaluation of an E-Learning Online Pecan Management Course," is a refreshing article that reports on where an Extension programming effort fell a bit short. I think that's even more informative and helpful than reading about successes.
And I've referred to just under half of the articles in this month's issue!
Laura Hoelscher, Editor