I find it interesting how emails cluster in my inbox. This email, linking to my current readership dashboard, appeared directly after receiving a rejection.
Rejections are good. They keep me humble. But they are also like course evaluations - sometimes they are contradictory. For every positive comment there is a corresponding negative comment, usually about the same thing.
Reviewer A liked it.
“The article is clear and understandable. There is no problem in the flow of reading.”
“A study that can contribute to the course design. The added elements are based on rational reasons.”
Reviewer B did not.
“This author does not offer anything new to ODL”
“Satisfactory but also dated. There is several bodies of literature that were not captured within this literature.”
Reviewers C & E kind of liked it.
“The topic is interesting; however, the research is based on the author’s personal experiences, it can not be generalized to a larger population.”
“Author has made use of recent literature which is the strength of this article”
“This is a well written reflection of an individual case study of a course.”
“I appreciate the author's thoughtful reflection on his own teaching and the lens through which he examines his instructional design process.”
“I doubt the helpfulness of this article for other faculty who are working through instructional design processes and the ability to sufficiently replicate the study.”
Of all the comments, this is probably the one that hurt the most:
“One major weakness of this article is that the manuscript is poorly written. The author is suggested to get it checked from a native speaker.”
I face only instrinsic motivation to produce scholarship. I am going to see what I can do to address some of their comments and then submit elsewhere, perhaps to a journal with a discipline-specific focus on teaching in the discipline. This might make it more generalizable.
And I will practice my English. Perhaps one day I will be able to write like a native speaker!