Ok. So as a lecturer, I'm expected to write articles. Blogging doesn't count. There's an enitre, self-sustaining hierarchy of journals which we're supposed to publish in, which only ever get read because other academics want to know what to write. It's like a South Sea Bubble of 'knowledge'. And it hasn't burst.
Anyway, had an idea (almost three years ago now) about the way in which ideas spread like viruses and decided to send the paper to a top management journal. Let's call it the Journal of Management Studies. Because that's it's name.
So amazingly, they don't reject it (98% failure rate apparently) and the four (yes, 4!) professors who reviewed it gave me their comments to improve it for publication. Now, regardless of the fact that most of these comments were contradictory, I made the changes and resubmitted it. Now this pattern of resubmission, comments, resubmission has now been going on for almost three years and I'm starting to wonder what the point of it all is, especially now the reviewers are asking me to reinsert things (!) that two years ago, they asked to be removed.
And you, the taxpayer (gawd bless ya) are paying for this linguistic merry-go-round. Still, it beats stacking shelves at Tescos.......
