One of the sessions at SBL in Atlanta (2015) brought together three editors of mainstream journals to discuss the process of selecting and editing journal articles for publication in their journal. Much of the process is common sense, but it was most helpful to hear the differences between the journals that were represented and their estimated statistics on article selection vs. rejection and the kinds of articles they receive. Such information may give you the edge on all the other submissions flying in.
First up was Catholic Biblical Quarterly, which, by the way, is ecumenical and not only for Catholics. They are interested in exegetical issues, with a close reading of the biblical text and related literature. The typical methodology is historical criticism, but they are open to other models. They accept 24 articles a year and last year received about 90 submissions. This included 28 in OT, 1 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 45 in NT, 6 in other areas, and 10 were rejected immediately.
They use a double blind method. If the assessment by the two readers is radically different, a third reader gets involved. The classifications for submissions is as follows: ready to go as-is (#1), good but nothing new (#2); good ideas but needs more revision (#3); not acceptable as is (#4); good article but belong in another journal (#5). Last year they accepted 19 articles, returned 11 for revision, and rejected 59.
Why are articles rejected?
- The idea may be interesting but the development of argumentation is not adequate;
- There is not enough interaction with secondary literature, especially in non-English works, and more so when important works have been done in other languages.
CBQ is always looking for book reviewers. If you are interested, they could use the help; find the book review editor’s information on the inside cover of the journal and e-mail him or her.
Second up was Biblical Interpretation, one of Brill’s journals. For them, publication is a business and they are looking for articles that fit exactly within their vision. Biblical Interpretation focuses on new methodologies in biblical studies. They prefer something that is theologically innovative. Articles should be no longer than 40 pages double-spaced. Their acceptance rate is below 20%, so the article must be well-informed and clearly use a new, innovative methodology. They do not accept any rebuttals.
One piece of advice the editor gave was to “close the door to write for yourself, then open the door to write for your audience.” In other words, write at first for fun, for yourself. Write something because you enjoy writing it, and don’t write for an outside audience on your first draft. Once you’ve finished your draft, then start considering how best to make your argument to the outside world and edit accordingly.
Third was Journal of Biblical Literature, SBL’s flagship journal. Their peer-review system is the same as CBQ’s. They receive around 250 submissions per year and have a 9 month max turnaround from the time the article is submitted in exactly the correct format. The format is important and clearly specified on the website. It is of course intended for a high-level academic audience and footnotes should reflect that. Important literature in other languages should be used. They publish 60 articles a year, which means they reject around 190 of their 250 submissions, or 76%.
As I said, much of this is common sense: write for the journal’s target audience, provide enough interaction with secondary literature, cover non-English languages, etc. But the statistics on high rejection rates was interesting and perhaps encouraging if you’ve ever been rejected by a journal. Something else to keep in mind is that extensive feedback on an article that is rejected is a good sign according to the editors; that means the reviewer believes it has promise and could be improved and published. There is more to be said about the mechanics of writing and revision, but that must await another post.
Learn how to get published in a peer-reviewed journal Share on XWhat tips for getting published would you add?
