Editorial decision on your year, "2021"
(revise and resubmit)
Dear Rachel,
I’ve now received three reviews on your year, “2021,” and as you can see, the reviewers are somewhat mixed in their reception of your effort. Although all three reviewers find something to like in your year, Reviewers 2 and 3, in particular, raise a number of substantive issues that prevent me from accepting your year in its current form. I am confident, however, that these constructive reviews will assist you in improving your year, and hereby invite you to revise and resubmit. With a little effort on your part, I’m sure 2022 will be better.
Copies of reviews can be found below.
Reviewer 1
What an exciting year! I appreciate the opportunity to provide a review for your year, “2021,” and found much to like about what I saw. Several obvious high points stood out, in my opinion.
This is a packed year, with quite a number of moving parts to digest and assimilate. I note, for example, that this is the second in a series of pandemic years—and this is not a requirement, but I wonder if it makes sense to think of this year, “2021,” as the second in an eventual trilogy? It might help complete the larger narrative arc that I can see developing.
Perhaps because of the underlying pandemic theme, your year relies heavily on outdoor activity, especially hiking and running. It will be interesting to see how this nascent focus develops in your future years. I will follow your trajectory with great interest.
The birth of your first grandchild provides an overarching framework to your year that I find intriguing. I might have expected to see a bit more focus on research and publications, but this is a minor point. Certainly your return to teaching after three years is a notable contribution to the year, as is your ongoing work on SAD2020—although I draw your attention to the fact that we are almost in 2022. You may want to consider updating to more recent references.
Aside from the above comments, I do not have much in the way of improvements to suggest, but would instead like to highlight what I view, based on my own assessment, as the main strengths of the year:
Good work on becoming a grandmother this year. You must be so happy. I appreciate how completely obvious you have made it that this is the defining moment of your year. To me, and I suspect to your wider audience, this will be the most enduring contribution to your 2021.
It would appear that you like to climb things. If this is not the case, I suggest that future years not feature the climbing of hills quite so prominently. I offer two specific examples of what I’m talking about:
Although you summited only two Munros this year (correct me if I have misread), discussion of these hikes and of Munro-bagging more generally occupies a substantial portion of the latter half of your year. My suggestion is to avoid needless repetition.
Similarly, your precipitous (and, some might venture, foolhardy) decision to climb Mt Washington (elev. 6,288’) seems to have emerged out of nowhere. A minor recommendation, but if you intend this to be a common component of your year, perhaps do it more regularly.
On the subject of consistency, I like how you got out there and ran, rain or shine, at least 3 times a week most weeks this year. Running really helped shape and define your 2021 and it shows. Aside from that, 944 miles is a decent distance. Good work.
You opened the year with a resolution to have your own SubStack and it’s apparent from the content of your year that you delivered on this goal. Although it might have been nice to see more consistent essay production, this slight deficiency does not appear to have impinged on the overall quality of your year.
In conclusion, this is a good, solid year, with lots that is positive to point to. I am happy to recommend acceptance and wish all years could be as eventful and impactful as this one.
Reviewer 2
I reviewed this year (“2021”) several times and am still at a loss as to its overall point. I would willingly suggest improvements if I felt that the underlying premise of the year—which, I should say, I was unable to establish—was more obvious. Below I draw attention to the main weaknesses of your year (however, this list should not be considered exhaustive):
First, you call this year “2021,” and yet it is entirely unclear to me how it differs from your previous year, “2020.” Please clarify.
Your year lacks coherence and balance in presentation. It reads more as a first-pass, draft attempt at a year than a final, finished product and I do not appreciate my time wasted on such efforts.
It is not for me to judge, but I would have expected your year to be motivated more by academic endeavours than the personal and domestic. Instead, the takeaway message from “2021” seems to be that there is more to life than work—a problematic conclusion, to say the least, that I do not find sufficiently justified.
Excessive quantification. That is to say: too many numbers in your year. The key contributions of your year seem to hinge on metrics: first grandchild, first Munros, total number of runs—and, is it possible?—total elevation climbed. Where the latter is concerned, I fail to see the relevance, even if 62,000 feet is admittedly remarkable for someone of your athletic calibre.
Moreover, failure to contextualise key activities. What was the larger theme of this year? What foundational considerations are relevant? How did these activities contribute to big-picture quality of life and contentment? I am unable to answer these quite basic questions from my assessment of your year.
A final point: Munros. They receive a great deal of attention in your year and yet I note that you’ve only ever climbed 2…out of 282. Munro bagging—more like Munro-bragging…
This year is all over the place, sometimes quite literally. This is not merely a question of poor organisation of the larger narrative structure, but rather reflects a potentially fatal flaw: low-quality activities and use of time.
In summary, I suggest you produce a completely different year.
Reviewer 3
The fuck even is this. You call this a year?
caramba, reviewer 2 sure was harsh! lovely post though, and i enjoyed reading some of the others as well...