Whether submitting journal articles or book manuscripts, academic authors can expect their work to be anonymously reviewed by expert peers. Sometimes helpful, sometimes infuriating, reviewers’ comments can make or break a publication; a negative review can bring your piece to a screeching halt. Join us Tuesday, November 19, from 1-2 p.m. ET for the TAA Webinar, “Responding to Reviewers’ Comments”, where presenter Mark Pedretti, an Assistant Director of English at Providence College, will discuss strategies for engaging with reviewer’s comments — both positive and negative. He will also:
- Explore ways to figure out the importance placed upon comments in a given publishing context, the relationship between editor and reviewer, and whether comments are in fact “make or break.”
- Talk about strategies for documenting responses to suggestions, and how to politely decline to make changes that are off base.
The goal: to equip webinar participants with a set of tools for navigating the unspoken rules of the review process.
Most of us probably had mentors in graduate school and may still maintain contact with them. But they may not be available every time we need their advice or guidance. I suggest that we all have a mentor that is always available, night and day, every season and semester, for every situation and circumstance.
Have you heard the saying “You don’t get a second chance to make a first impression”? For most research articles, the abstract is the first – and possibly the last – impression an author has on a potential reader. If ineffective, the researcher will move on to the next abstract in the search results. If effective, your article will be read further, and potentially cited in the new research.
Join TAA on Twitter on Friday, March 23 at 11 a.m. ET using the hashtag #AcWriChat for our latest TweetChat focused on thinking about journals and publishing your work.
During the 2017 TAA Conference session, 
Not all who wander are lost. In fact, some who wander are not lost but just exploring the terrain. Yet, when I read a journal article, I do not want to wander and wonder where the work is headed. Partly because of my busy schedule and largely because I am seeking ideas, information and even inspiration, I want to know right away what the scholarly work is about. Scholars can guide readers along a smooth reading road by paying attention to the not-so-obvious infrastructure of typical journal articles and writing their submissions with this structure in mind. 
After peer review but before publication, even the best manuscripts typically require revision. When you are faced with readers’ reports, it’s key to understand clearly the feedback you’ve been given and then to proceed in a way that responds adequately while making the most of your time and retaining the core intentions of your work.
