The Least Publications Can Do…
…Is to Give a Submission the Respect It Deserves
How many times have you written to a publication and haven’t even received an acknowledgement in return?
How many times have you been at the receiving end of an unprofessional attitude from a supposedly professional publication?
How many times have you spent days expecting a response only to be left disappointed?
How many times have you received a response that is anything but convincing?
How many times have you been asked to rework the draft only to be rejected again?
How many times have you felt someone from the publication hasn’t even read the submission?
It is given when writers submit a proposal to a publication they are not certain about its fate. Unless and until the writer is a known name, or a person with an enviable social media standing, chances of facing rejection is a lot higher.
It is not that the writers are not aware of this when they submit to a publication. It is just that they expect their submission to be treated with respect, and be given a proper reason for the refusal of the same. It is here that most publications fail a deemed contributor.
In fact content aggregators on forums like Medium surprise the most. For starters, they never have a set of rules — that keep on changing every few months. Second they want the contributor to make all the corrections before submitting. Third, they don’t pay a contributor, instead preferring to hide behind the Medium pay wall. Fourth, almost all of them dump the content aggregated and make no effort whatsoever to promote them. Fifth, most of them can also not guarantee a certain readership.
What does a contributor gain by making submissions to such publications? It’s worth thinking. Isn’t it?
To be fair, such aggregators may have a point when they say they receive submissions in a huge volume. The counterargument being, isn’t this what they had hoped for in the first place. Shouldn’t they have prepared for this?
If the publications receive a large number of submissions, as they claim, is true then also true is the fact that they make a lot of money from the efforts of others.
Why not use some of that money to hire a few editors? A few people that can actually read the draft, and give a contributor a valid reason for the refusal. Some people who can at least work towards making a cohesive set of rules that don’t change every now and then. And people who are paid for that job, so that they have some motivation to do it.
It is understood that many such publications don’t have too many editors who can proof read and double check the submission. It is given that most involved with such publication have well-paid jobs, and do this content aggregation as a side gig, as a means to earn additional income.
Another case scenario pertains to publication lamenting on their lack of ability to pay and acquiring voluntary editors based on common interests. When people aren’t paid for doing the job how long can they be expected to sustain their interest. In either case there’s no seriousness of purpose involved, as claimed by the publication.
How else does one explain the constant changing of rules as also the lack of clarity in their responses. This kind of attitude tantamount to disrespecting contributors, rather undermining their efforts but the publications could not care less. There’s little effort to communicate with the contributor.
Even a polite refusal may suffice. A detailed description maybe much appreciated. However, giving no proper response and assuming the contributor will understand the rejection is the worst possible thing an aggregator can do, and exactly what most tend to do more often than not.
In more ways than one it defeats the very purpose of being a trustworthy publication. It is like a few people benefitting at the cost of a majority. Truth be told this apathy and unprofessional behavior is unwarranted.
That said forums like this have become like those overpopulated countries where the excess is so much that their respective governments is little or least concerned about the plight of the citizens.
