Antaki2024
Antaki2024 | |
---|---|
BibType | INCOLLECTION |
Key | Antaki2024 |
Author(s) | Charles Antaki, Leelo Keevallik, Elwys De Stefani |
Title | What Do Journal Editors Look for in Publishing Conversation-Analytic Work? |
Editor(s) | Jeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick, Chase Wesley Raymond |
Tag(s) | EMCA, Publication, Desk-rejection, Reviewing, Revision, ROLSI, Editors, Reviewers |
Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
Year | 2024 |
Language | English |
City | Cambridge |
Month | |
Journal | |
Volume | |
Number | |
Pages | 922-927 |
URL | Link |
DOI | 10.1017/9781108936583.032 |
ISBN | |
Organization | |
Institution | |
School | |
Type | |
Edition | |
Series | |
Howpublished | |
Book title | The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis |
Chapter | 32 |
Abstract
What happens to submissions to a journal such as Research on Language and Social Interaction which publishes close, technically sophisticated analysis of interaction? What do its editors look for? We begin by explaining why submission might be desk-rejected: it might be simply unsuitable in topic or methodology for the journal, or it might be that it is somehow not quite up to standard. Methodologically sound work on a topic of interest to the EM/CA community will pass the first hurdle and be sent out for review by knowledgeable peers. Reviewers will report on the strength of the argument, the relation of the work to what is already known, and the quality of the analysis. Most papers at this stage will receive an encouraging invitation to revise and resubmit according to the reviewers’ comments and the editors’ recommendations. The revision, to pass the next stage, should be accompanied by a closely written, collegially written commentary on what the authors have done with the reviewers’ comments. The editors will scrutinize the revision and the covering letter very carefully; if all is well, then, with one last round of very minor tidying up, all is set for publication.
Notes