Organization Monkey

a few weeks ago i got the reviews on an article i had submitted for publication.  long story short, the decision was to revise and resubmit.  i knuckled down and read through the reviewers’ and editor’s suggestions, to figure out how to incorporate the changes.  the changes weren’t so much about the content, but about how to rearrange the order of the paper’s elements for a different effect.  after revising, using their suggestions, i ended up with a paper that was broader in scope and much more interesting to a general audience.  in the end the paper was  better than the one i initially submitted.

i guess i’ve always thought about the peer review process as a kind of test on my concept and methodology; i hadn’t ever thought of it as a collaborative effort on the craft of writing.  but without the suggestions of the reviewers the article would have only been interesting to a narrow audience; their ideas broadened the possible readership.  i’ll keep this in mind for future articles — the reviewers aren’t there to just judge, but are there to guide the process of academic communication.