Re: A paper rejected, revised and re-uploaded!

Dear Robert,

Sorry for the late reply. Because of thunderstorms, the internet connection 
has been very bad the whole week. It becomes better only today so my reply 
now.

You wrote:

> Nothing unusual about a journal rejecting an article entirely on a 
> reviewers recommendation, happens more often than not, I would say.

Of course, a reviewer's comments carry much greater weight since he is the 
one whom the editor has chosen as an expert to judge a given paper. I can 
understand that. But not even bothering to give the author a chance to 
defend his work --- it is another matter. If it "happens more often than 
not", as you said, such events are probably unique to Buddhist Studies, I 
think. For I have read some literature on academic writing and most other 
fields are not like that. In other fields, most editors usually give the 
author a chance to do a major rewrite and resubmit unless (1) the paper is 
not suitable for the stated scope and objectives of the journal (2) or the 
paper is a rehash of older materials without anything really new to say. (I 
dare say my paper at least do not have these problems)

In fact, I have met even more bizarre events in my very limited 
experience--- for example, a reviewer who rejected my paper but who was too 
busy to write a report and chose instead to explain verbally to the editor 
when they happened to meet at a conference. A really strange field indeed.

> All articles need some context and Dhammavihari is hardly a household 
> name even in Buddhist circles. it seems fair that the >reviewer expects 
> background and doesn't rate him as being near buddhaghosa in authority ( 
> I am sure you don't either)

Sorry, I don't agree with this statement on principle. As far as my paper 
is concerned, both Buddhaghosa and Dhammavihari are scholars who made 
different statements about some pieces of the canonical text, so I quote 
their statements and argue against them. Their comparative fame or 
authority is entirely irrelevant here. Some context is necessary, as you 
said, but only for the sake of making my argument clear, not more. In this 
case, I am criticizing certain statements of Dhammavihari. It does not 
necessarily imply that the remaining parts of the book are bad and I can 
see no need to give credit to him for these other parts since I am not 
writing a review of his book.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your comments.


with metta

Ven. Pandita


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]