Professionalization, Conferences, and The Circulation of Knowledge: My Years of Accumulating Rejection
Has anyone discussed the submissions process for professional conferences — the important, if infamously flawed, social mixer for the knowledge production class? No? Not entirely? I think it would be worth taking the time to do start a short introduction to the topic. And what better way to describe the magic of turning your brilliant ideas into scholarly and intellectual coin than a real life example of such an attempt failing miserably? I'll go ahead and not bother to remove my name, as my innocence is well known to be suspect anyway, and the hideous process I describe in what follows is protected through a process that should be familiar to anyone who's watched an episode of CSI — the anonymous grand jury, or in this case, the anonymous reviewer.
It's a tough game. I enjoy playing it immensely, despite the pain. I don't have expectations that I will obtain more than an average and low acceptance record, particularly because I play at the boundaries of acceptable theory, objects, practice and approach to knowledge production. That's okay — I enjoy being at the edge, much more than in the center. I am also much more satisfied than this post might sound — not perfectly satisfied, but okay. And I am really happy to have a mechanism for circulating what I think to a wider audience. Sharing such things as these reviews makes it a bit more tolerable.
Why "Accumulate Rejection." It means you're out there taking risks, probing for your audience, and continuing to circulate ideas, insights and culture. It's kind of like being an actor, going on auditions. Or worse, a comedian, playing the circuit.
Brace yourself.
My Years of Accumulating Rejection
Comments
This is pretty typical. CHI btw is one of the most difficult ones to publish in and they whip people up very much. They are the most 'scientific' of venues for this type of work and they pick over scholarlyness in ways you couldn't imagine.
In some of the hard and cherished science journals, paper acceptance can be as low as 3%. So don't feel bad. My second submission I ever tried I got slapped hard on the face for my submission to IEEE Multimedia. It wasn't a great submission to be honest and boy were the reviewers mean and erratic. My boyfriend over the years has also collected some ruthless commentary, primarily for siggraph. I got rejected from Sigraph Sketches two years ago and those comments were stupid and disagreeing.
I review papers once and awhile and I can be harsh too although I try to be as constructive as possible...
It is a rough rough world out there and it is better to practice with some of the venues with a higher acceptance rate. People who publish to high-end venues almost every year have a way in usually or have stepped onto some emerging trend and are forgiven for less scholarly publications, whatever the hell that means in our field.
Publishing makes zero sense. After observing what happens in the hard sciences through my geologist friend however, I am very grateful that I am not a scientist and I don't have to quantify every milimeter of my brain with lab findings.
Posted by: marientina![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://interactive.usc.edu/members/jbleecker/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 8, 2006 10:34 AM
Wow - I have much less experience in this world than you Julian, or you Marientina. So it's immensely valuable to see inside the peer-review process of paper submission!
Thanks for baring your experience here; for people just beginning the academic rejection process, it's inspiring.
Posted by: Justin Hall![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://interactive.usc.edu/members/jbleecker/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 8, 2006 10:49 AM
thanks for the eye-opening, soul-baring post, julian.
Posted by: Aaron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://interactive.usc.edu/members/jbleecker/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 8, 2006 11:26 AM
Transparency is a rare gem in academia. I've spent most of my life in it, and there are lots of nuggets of pragmatic insights to be known. I keep a spreadsheet for each year that I've submitted things with an accept/reject This is just one. Perhaps I'll propose an Academia for Dummies book.
Posted by: jbleecker![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://interactive.usc.edu/members/jbleecker/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 8, 2006 1:43 PM