Read on Twitter
When I first submitted my article on women and technical divination in ancient Jewish texts, it has taken almost 1,5 years to have this article accepted to be published. A thread about review processes. 1/
In Sept 2019, I submitted this article to journal A, highly ranked, and well quoted. This journal takes 9 months to get back to me. During these months, there is zero communication about the process or how long it will take. I reach out to the editors sometime in the winter 2/
but they never reply to my inquiry. A week before the rejection, they communicate to me that they are almost ready to give me feedback. 3/
With the help of a trusted colleague, I carefully read the reviews, revise the article, and in June 2020, submit it to journal B, equally a journal of great reputation. This is quick to come back with their feedback. Reviewer #1 has a generally positive view in my article. 4/
Reviewer #2 writes that how we have almost no evidence for women and divination in the ancient Jewish world "no reason to devote an entire paper to an issue on which our sources, unfortunately, cannot shed any meaningful light.” 5/
I am puzzled. Aren’t most of the studies in the field of Biblical Studies theories built on scarce sources? What does it mean to have enough evidence of something? 6/
It takes a lot of venting and talking about this project to submit it for the third time. I owe a big thanks to my colleagues at #OnlyByTitle for taking the time to think this paper through with me and to brainstorm where to submit it. 7/
My takes? Journals really need to be more transparent about their review times. Untenured scholars cannot wait feedback for months. 8/
As a reviewer, I will make sure never write to someone that a project is not meaningful because the evidence is little. If I don’t think the research question is an important one, it does not mean that it is that for someone else. Promise. 9/
