Publishing a journal article is an important part of our academic work, but the process can be challenging, particularly for early career scholars (ECSs) who often juggle precarious teaching and research contracts and need to have published articles before they can apply for a more secure job. In this blog post, which is part of the International Journal of Law in Context (IJLC) series, I share some insights on the IJLC editorial process, offer some suggestions for fellow ECSs, and reflect on academic publishing in the time of Covid-19.

I joined the IJLC as an assistant editor in June 2018, collaborating first with David Nelken and later with the other editors-in-chief on managing the general submissions. Before joining the editorial team I attended the Law In Context Early Career Workshop at the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, which our current editor-in-chief, Marc Hertogh, discusses in this blog, where I received very helpful comments on a paper that was later published in the IJLC.

Submissions
The number of submissions to the IJLC varies: we can receive ten papers in a day or only one in a week. The proportion of desk rejections (papers rejected before undergoing the external review process) over the last year has been around 70 per cent. There are two main reasons for a desk rejection: the first is common to other academic journals and concerns good academic practice such as extensive research, clear structure, accurate writing and citations; the second is more specific to the IJLC and is a lack of engagement with and contribution to socio-legal scholarship.

We receive a number of papers that focus on a particular context but do not adopt a socio-legal and interdisciplinary approach and/or do not contribute to the field. Encouraging work that explores and expands the boundaries of law and legal studies is a defining aspect of the IJLC. In some cases we suggest that the authors consider other, perhaps more specialist journals that are more relevant to the specific discipline of the paper. We also reject or ‘unsubmit’ (send back to the authors for amendment) papers that are not anonymised and do not follow the ‘instructions to authors’ on length and style. Authors, and particularly ECSs, are always welcome to approach IJLC editors for advice and to discuss the topic of their paper.

A key suggestion that we, like other academic journals, make to authors and particularly ECSs is to get feedback on their paper from mentors, friends and colleagues and present their work at conferences and workshops to shape their research, so that their articles are finely polished when they submit them to us. The main purpose of our review of a submitted paper is to bring out the best in it in terms of analysis and argument, rather than to correct typographical errors and point out missing citations. The idea of giving ECSs the opportunity to receive and incorporate feedback motivated the development of the Law in Context Early Career Workshop, as we believe that practice in addressing comments not only contributes to improving the paper but also prepares authors to respond to reviews more effectively and confidently, which is a very important aspect of the publishing process.

Reviews and outcome
When a paper submitted to the IJLC has a clear socio-legal focus, shows the authors’ engagement with relevant academic debate and has a compelling argument we send it to two reviewers who are experts on the topic. We ask them to provide constructive comments and we always rely on their evaluation and feedback. The reviews can take between one and a few months; once reviewers accept the article they can ask for an extension depending on their circumstances, and if there is to be an excessive delay we try to reallocate the review.

Reviews of the majority of papers advise the authors to ‘revise and resubmit’, which corresponds to major corrections. When one reviewer suggests minimal changes and the other advises revision and resubmission we generally opt for the latter to give authors more time to address the comments. When the outcome of a review is ‘revise and resubmit’ we do not formally accept the paper but invest our own and our reviewers’ time in making it suitable for publication, although of course the final outcome depends on the author’s revised paper and response to the reviewers. This is why it is important for authors to provide a clear and well-structured response to their reviews highlighting how they have addressed the comments, the changes made, how these have improved the paper, and which suggestions could not be implemented and why; it is perfectly legitimate to point out any reviewer’s comments that ask for amendments that are beyond the scope of the article.

These details in the author’s response are very important as they allow the reviewers to check whether their suggestions have been addressed and the editors to eventually accept the paper. Revised and resubmitted papers are generally sent back to one or both reviewers according to their suggestions (for instance to the reviewer that suggested major changes) and their availability.

More rarely we accept papers with minimal changes recommended by both reviewers, but we still send the revised paper back to the reviewers for a final check. Reviewers recommending that we reject a paper are not as common as ‘revise and resubmit’: we reject papers when both reviewers suggest that we do so or when one recommends rejection and the major revisions suggested by the other cannot be addressed within the two-month timeframe allowed for revision and resubmission. In this case authors receive detailed comments from the reviewers to help them to rework their paper, and they are always welcome to submit it again later.

The immaterial labour of academic publishing
It is important to recognise that academic publishing relies greatly on the immaterial labour of scholars serving as reviewers and providing advice and feedback outside their working hours. This support is very important, particularly for ECSs, as it provides them with mentoring and encouragement to publish. Such immaterial labour, however, is often unrecognised and/or undertaken by academics who also have other caring and social responsibilities or who have material concerns related to the precarity of their jobs. These dynamics have been amplified by the current Covid-19 crisis, which has created additional responsibilities and exacerbated some of the inequalities that have increasingly motivated requests for change in academia, as demonstrated by the wave of strikes in UK universities just before the lockdown. For instance the gender and racial pay gap is grounded in normative and structural inequalities that tend to relegate Black, Asian, minority ethnic, female and disabled scholars to positions at the lower end of the income/power distribution, but is also reproduced by a system of valuation that praises individual academic achievements over more collective and generational contributions.

Collective and generational contributions are not only important but also necessary to making academia a diverse, open and socially-just space of possibility, reimagination and change. Recent data shared by academic journals suggest that there are worrying gendered trends, demonstrating that women’s research is falling behind while men are publishing more. An intersectional lens on this pattern would suggest that this gendered disadvantage is greater for women living with disability, from racialised groups and with caring responsibilities, with the risk of further widening the pay gap and inequalities. The same applies to ECSs in more precarious conditions, deprived of material support such as scholarships and seasonal teaching contracts and of the opportunities and support they need to build their academic future. New collaborations are being developed to provide online workshops to encourage the publication of research conducted by women from unprivileged groups and scholars from the Global South. The IJLC started its Early Career Workshops in 2015 to support the work of ECSs, but if Covid-19 brings changes to academic publishing I hope these will include more support and funding for a variety of such initiatives, recognising and rewarding the immaterial work involved in the publishing process and considering the collective energies supporting individual authorship.

Serena Natile is Assistant Editor of the International Journal of Law in Context. Find her on Twitter @Serena_Natile or visit the journal’s Twitter @IJLC_CUP to stay updated on current publications.