Rejection in the World of Publishing – A Lingering Question
Co-authored with Dr Ashish Rastogi, NIAC Ambassador
“This doesn't feel like the right project for me at this time. I'm so sorry, but this is a pass for me.”
Kind words, but they cut you deep if you are a writer trying to get your book published. Put in a single, simple term- rejection. In the life of each author comes not one but several moments of such rejections. It stings, it hurts, it disappoints, and sometimes it even demoralises. And why shouldn’t it? There we are, our souls laid bare on paper, invested in our story and deeply in love with the characters we worked to bring to this world, only to know (from those whose opinions matter) that they aren’t good enough!
The question ‘So why was I rejected again?’ arises with each query rejection, with no easy answers. The authors are usually left wondering seriously about their incapability at writing or crafting a plot, taking shots in the dark, torturing themselves.
The reason is the complete absence of a clear-cut rejection mail in most cases, whereas in some cases, the wordings of such a mail are so generic that they provide little guidance to the author. Several publication houses, in their submission instructions to authors, clearly mention that the absence of a response from them is to be interpreted as a rejection. Some of the others who do take the trouble to respond at the end of 12 weeks indicate how thoroughly they enjoyed going through what you wrote but that presently they are not publishing that genre. Truth be told, such responses (or the lack of them) give the uncomfortable feeling that probably one’s manuscript was not even read through.
Are there parallels to the submission- review and publication process in other fields? Can the book publishing industry adopt some of those practices?
Coming from the field of science, I know that a systematic approach can be adopted which supports the writing journeys of authors all over the world. Publication is a thing in the science world, too. We need to publish research papers in journals that have high citation indices, these indices calculated by Thomas Reuters no less, if we want entry or promotions in good research institutes and gain the respect of our colleagues. Papers in the scientific world are also rejected galore – in fact, it is quite rare for a researcher to not get rejected several times. However, every rejection is meticulously explained, to the depth of pointing out which line number on which page the reviewer had an issue with. Yes, that detailed! All these comments are made available to the researchers, so that they improve what they have written, either for a second submission in the same journal post editing, or for some other more suitable journal. The process of going through a research manuscript is not restricted to a single reviewer, no, there is a team of 3 or 5 individuals who go through it and give their thorough comments, before saying yay or nay. Majority wins, as it should.
What helps these journals’ editorial boards to reject so elaborately? Is it that the scientific journals are making more money than their counterparts in the creative writing world? Or do they have more staff members on pay-roll, to manage such detailed rejection analysis? The secret seems to be the concept of voluntary peer-review. In fact, peer-review is such a critical element of the scientific world that journals are considered good or bad depending on whether they are peer-reviewed or not. Each journal has a coterie of voluntary peer-reviewers - many of whom are past contributors. Remarkably, a substantial number of these reviewers may have got their papers rejected by this same journal. How strongly effort is valued in the world of science! And how impersonal is the rejection in this field! Rejected, yet respected. It is something that I have liked best in this whole research paper publication journey.
Coming back to the world of creative writing, how can some of these concepts be adopted? What is holding back the publishing industry from changing the status quo.
Not having sufficient number of volunteers? Well, I am sure if a recruitment-drive is initiated for volunteer readers with a list of their favourite genres, quite a substantial crowd of worthy individuals can be gathered. With a projected worth of INR 739 billion by 2020 (as per the Economic Times*), the Indian book market has numerous voracious readers to buttress my faith that voluntary peer reviewers will not be tough to find.
Could it be the fear of plagiarism? Well, that fear is even worse in the science world - with unpublished data that took not just man-hours but even money to collect. How is the science world tackling this? Sharing of copy-disabled PDFs, use of plagiarism checking software and a bank-like KYC of their volunteers are some of the options that come to the top of my mind. Better heads than mine and a deeper analysis than this will assuredly yield more fool-proof methods.
Is it the worry of time and effort wastage for a problem that is non-existent in the eyes of the publishers? Well then, the publishers do need to take note of this, internalize this challenge and realize that it needs a mutually beneficial way out - for the issue of unexplained or inadequately explained rejection is critical for the content creators.
In the meanwhile, should one focus on getting a Harvard degree or trying to become a celebrity?
***
Views expressed above are entirely personal
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...
“This doesn't feel like the right project for me at this time. I'm so sorry, but this is a pass for me.”
Kind words, but they cut you deep if you are a writer trying to get your book published. Put in a single, simple term- rejection. In the life of each author comes not one but several moments of such rejections. It stings, it hurts, it disappoints, and sometimes it even demoralises. And why shouldn’t it? There we are, our souls laid bare on paper, invested in our story and deeply in love with the characters we worked to bring to this world, only to know (from those whose opinions matter) that they aren’t good enough!
The question ‘So why was I rejected again?’ arises with each query rejection, with no easy answers. The authors are usually left wondering seriously about their incapability at writing or crafting a plot, taking shots in the dark, torturing themselves.
The reason is the complete absence of a clear-cut rejection mail in most cases, whereas in some cases, the wordings of such a mail are so generic that they provide little guidance to the author. Several publication houses, in their submission instructions to authors, clearly mention that the absence of a response from them is to be interpreted as a rejection. Some of the others who do take the trouble to respond at the end of 12 weeks indicate how thoroughly they enjoyed going through what you wrote but that presently they are not publishing that genre. Truth be told, such responses (or the lack of them) give the uncomfortable feeling that probably one’s manuscript was not even read through.
Are there parallels to the submission- review and publication process in other fields? Can the book publishing industry adopt some of those practices?
Coming from the field of science, I know that a systematic approach can be adopted which supports the writing journeys of authors all over the world. Publication is a thing in the science world, too. We need to publish research papers in journals that have high citation indices, these indices calculated by Thomas Reuters no less, if we want entry or promotions in good research institutes and gain the respect of our colleagues. Papers in the scientific world are also rejected galore – in fact, it is quite rare for a researcher to not get rejected several times. However, every rejection is meticulously explained, to the depth of pointing out which line number on which page the reviewer had an issue with. Yes, that detailed! All these comments are made available to the researchers, so that they improve what they have written, either for a second submission in the same journal post editing, or for some other more suitable journal. The process of going through a research manuscript is not restricted to a single reviewer, no, there is a team of 3 or 5 individuals who go through it and give their thorough comments, before saying yay or nay. Majority wins, as it should.
What helps these journals’ editorial boards to reject so elaborately? Is it that the scientific journals are making more money than their counterparts in the creative writing world? Or do they have more staff members on pay-roll, to manage such detailed rejection analysis? The secret seems to be the concept of voluntary peer-review. In fact, peer-review is such a critical element of the scientific world that journals are considered good or bad depending on whether they are peer-reviewed or not. Each journal has a coterie of voluntary peer-reviewers - many of whom are past contributors. Remarkably, a substantial number of these reviewers may have got their papers rejected by this same journal. How strongly effort is valued in the world of science! And how impersonal is the rejection in this field! Rejected, yet respected. It is something that I have liked best in this whole research paper publication journey.
Coming back to the world of creative writing, how can some of these concepts be adopted? What is holding back the publishing industry from changing the status quo.
Not having sufficient number of volunteers? Well, I am sure if a recruitment-drive is initiated for volunteer readers with a list of their favourite genres, quite a substantial crowd of worthy individuals can be gathered. With a projected worth of INR 739 billion by 2020 (as per the Economic Times*), the Indian book market has numerous voracious readers to buttress my faith that voluntary peer reviewers will not be tough to find.
Could it be the fear of plagiarism? Well, that fear is even worse in the science world - with unpublished data that took not just man-hours but even money to collect. How is the science world tackling this? Sharing of copy-disabled PDFs, use of plagiarism checking software and a bank-like KYC of their volunteers are some of the options that come to the top of my mind. Better heads than mine and a deeper analysis than this will assuredly yield more fool-proof methods.
Is it the worry of time and effort wastage for a problem that is non-existent in the eyes of the publishers? Well then, the publishers do need to take note of this, internalize this challenge and realize that it needs a mutually beneficial way out - for the issue of unexplained or inadequately explained rejection is critical for the content creators.
In the meanwhile, should one focus on getting a Harvard degree or trying to become a celebrity?
***
Views expressed above are entirely personal
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Rakesh
(new)
Sep 23, 2020 01:03AM
A very in-depth thesis with the concerns every author, especially the new ones, go through. Hope it brings about some positive transition in the literary publishing world.
reply
|
flag
