Well, no, the war is still ongoing.
But...I received a positive reply from the journal where I sent my paper on Rabbi Elazar ben Arach! They favor accepting it after some revisions. So I have two months now to hand in the new version. This is very exciting.
I heard once that hardly any papers get published immediately, without revisions.
A month ago I was encouraged by one of my professors to send in a paper I wrote to another professor in the department. This is a paper that I put in my heart and soul and countless of hours of work over the course of 6-7 months (of course this was on and off as there were excavations and exams and such in-between). I was nervous about contacting this professor because though he's praised some of the school projects I've handed in in the past, he, how shall I say...has a certain mannerism and approach to academia and research. I was not sure he'd be impressed by the paper.
But he told me he'd read it ASAP and would contact me after. A month passed and I didn't hear from him, and I began to realize that something was up. School started this week (finally...) and I met him outside of class yesterday (well, actually, I ambushed him outside of his classroom, but whatever...) and instead of just saying something like "good work", he just asked that we set up a time to meet and discuss things. So we met today during a break period, and things were as I feared. He said what I desperately did not want to hear.
The gist was that though my schoolwork is praiseworthy, my essay was not academically up to par. I'm not dissing the compliment, I know that he meant it. But that's not what I was looking to hear. In his opinion, a paper has to deliver a metaphorical KO on its particular field of research. A paper should grab someone's attention from the start, and should be impressive from the onset. Theoretically, it may have been enough to just rearrange the paper. But it wouldn't have been enough, according to him, because, as the paper deals with a certain manuscript, I never answered the supposedly big question: Why was the text within the manuscript authored?
I have no answer to that. I have thought about this text for months now, but I don't know why it was authored. That aspect remains a mystery. But the paper presents a lot of other ideas tied to the manuscript, as well as a more solid (in my opinion) dating system. But that, in his opinion, is not a KO. It's not reason enough to try to publish this as an essay. It might be useful as a school project, but it's not on the level of a paper. He told me to come back to him (regarding this) once I had an answer to the question. Essentially, he told me to put it on a backburner indefinitely. That was very frustrating to hear. I wasn't insulted, but I am deeply frustrated.
Now, I'm obviously new in the field. I don't feel I have enough knowledge and the right tools to gauge whether what he said is true, or reflective of the majority of papers. I have come across a great number of papers who haven't delivered much of a KO, not really saying anything particularly surprising or new, but for various reasons, they were still published, often in top-tier journals. Obviously he thinks paper should be held to a high standard. But given that there are various types of papers, and not all deliver KOs as he would put it, particularly his definition of what a KO would be regarding this type of text, I wonder whether his criteria is correct.
I would like to get more opinions on the matter. I'm waiting to hear from the first professor on the matter, and maybe I'll reach out to another professor. I'm not prepared to give up so easily. I'm not planning on the moment on holding my ideas back indefinitely. If I hear all-around comments that the paper is not up to grade, I'll probably set it aside. But not just yet.
Things have both moved along and regressed. Both slightly.
On the Levitical Cities paper, it was rejected once again by the same journal. This time, though, I got to see what the reviewers thought of it. The first review made me laugh. I read it on a Motzei Shabbat a week and a half ago, at about 12:45 AM. The reviewer opened with claiming that my research did not move research in general forward but, rather, served as "a regression" (his/her words). Perhaps the kindest thing this person wrote was that the question I raised was interesting. What of the various subjects I touched was he referring to- I don't know. He then wrote a long paragraph on all the problems with dating the Levitical City lists from a minimalist-critical perspective. Then he tried to crack a joke at my expense, but the truth is that I also laughed. Because his review was just ridiculous altogether. It latched on the issue of textual dating while utterly ignoring the main portion of my paper, which is the archeology. And so, I was not insulted.
The second reviewer was considerably kinder and even recommended I try handing the paper to an archeology journal (I would, but there aren't much options in Hebrew. But see below). He also touched on the question of the dating, and I had to concede that while I had attempted to circle around the issue, it seems like I should indeed touch upon that question.
The professor who's helping me recommended sending in the yet-again revised paper (which I still haven't finished because I'm waiting for a certain book to arrive) to a journal which he had previously thought wouldn't fit the direction I was going with the paper. Chances are slim, but who knows. If not that one, then there's another, more lower-tier journal. The plus of that journal is that it's an Orthodox journal, so they wouldn't mind a paper that throws some excavation dirt piles in the eyes of critical biblical scholarship...
But if it gets rejected there, then two years of hard work would have basically gone down the drain. That's what really worries me. My professor might tell me to translate it and try to get it published in English, but it'll be a downer for sure. I have a couple of papers, this one included, that I've put in many hours of work; they've become my pride and joy. I would like to see them published in their original language (Hebrew).
In terms of other papers, nothing has moved along so far. One positive thing to say about the paper that rejected me is that other than of course, offering me a second chance to give in the paper, they were pretty quick about the review process. It took awhile for the editor to pass it along, but the reviewers themselves went through it in just a couple of weeks. Not all journals are so fast. My other pride-and-joy paper was sent in just over a month and a half ago with no new info so far, and has now beaten the top three Israeli history journals (these being the first three journals this paper was sent to) in terms of making a decision. The previous record was a month and a half. The other two were a month, and two weeks, if I'm not mistaken.
In other news, the semester has finally started here, but as I only learn on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, tomorrow will be my first day, which is exciting.
