I have just now submitted an article on body/embodiment to Studia Phaenomenologica. I am fairly confident I won't get published, and here are some reasons why.
1. What I wrote is a critique of the orthodoxy in the field. This might be publishable, except that...
2. I do not have sufficient academic clout to publish something critical of the field's orthodoxy, plus
3. I do not have a lengthy... resumé... of academic achievements, which, in English translation, means that...
4. I have not paid my dues, in as much as I have never published anything telling the world how great the orthodoxy really is, plus...
5. All that I have achieved in my academic field has been overwhelmed by scholars working tirelessly to contribute to the orthodoxy.
Besides which,
6. I'm not sure I'm right, and I don't have a strong argument making my case, and in addition,
7. really, nobody's ever heard of me, and
8. you can't just criticize academic shibboleths, because, what are you, nuts or something?!
Yet I've submitted it because:
9. I happen to think I'm right, and
10. I have nothing to lose.
2 comments:
11. But these go to eleven.
Hm. Numbers 9 and 10, in combination, spell trouble. "I've got the truth (or, at lest, the dirt), and I'm not afraid to use it!"
As for the rest, who knows? Maybe the peer review really will be blind, which would neutralize points 2 through 4, and maybe 5 as well . . . or, at least, that's how it's supposed to work.
Maybe you can hope for a "revise and resubmit"?
Post a Comment