November | 2013 | Dr. Abigail Leigh Phillips

In September, I submitted my first ever manuscript to an academic journal. That was exciting! Some time after, I heard back from the journal. My manuscript has been tentatively accepted (that’s good!). One of the reviewers had very positive, encouraging comments about my manuscript and only recommended minor changes (also good!). But then there was the other reviewer. This individual had even more comments, many of which were negative, and suggested major changes to the manuscript before possible publication (this is not good). My first response after reading these reviews was simple exhaustion. I worked so hard on this manuscript and had reached a point where I could only look at it sadly while shaking my head. I could not begin to contemplate making major changes to it. My major professor recommended that I step away from the reviews for a few days and then come back to them (hopefully less emotionally).

And I that’s what I did. Since I’ve come back to the reviews, I find myself still struggling with the criticism. How could two individuals have such different opinions on my topics, method, writing, and sources? How could they know my research area throughly enough to provide me with solid, relevant suggestions when I’ve been reading, thinking, and writing about it for months? This is also my first experience with peer reviews, which means there is a lot that I just don’t understand. So much. Mostly, I struggle to accept the criticism. I imagine it gets easier the more manuscripts you submit, the more research you share at conferences, and the more involved you become in the academic community. But knowing this doesn’t help the present feelings I’m experiencing: inadequacy, confusion, and frustration. As someone who has never accepted criticism without tears or frustration, knowing putting myself out there for certain criticism (usually constructive!) is very very hard. I imagine that there are many, many researchers who are struggling with these same issues. To end on a positive note, the semester is coming to an end, which means no classes, plenty of time for catch up work, and (possible) fun reading. Also, I have another paper under peer review so…. *cue suspenseful music*

How do you deal with constructive criticism (or just plan criticism)? Does this process get easier or do you just develop a tougher skin? Any suggestions on how to approach peer reviews in a more objective manner?

While working as a professional librarian, I would frequently encounter questions like, “Do we need libraries anymore?”, “Is Google putting libraries out of business?”, and “What do librarians do now that you can just go online?” I imagine the majority of people asking these types of questions lack a solid understanding of what librarians do or how libraries operate. In my experience, these people are usually are not regular library users (if at all) or library supporters. But similar questions have been raised in popular media (For examples, see commentary below from The Guardian, NPR, and The Washington Post) so obviously other people are asking the same questions at public libraries across the country.

To the public, libraries often are believed to be only warehouses of books, documents, and other sources of information. More repositories than anything purposeful, create, innovative, or interactive. If libraries are seen as simply public attics where lots of different things can be dumped, organized, and preserved, then I can understand why the death of libraries seems imminent to many. As more and more books, documents, and other random formerly printing items are digitized and placed online, physical locations to collect, store, and retrieve these items doesn’t seem necessary. But libraries are so much more than warehouses and librarians do so much more than check out books.

Anyway, all of this and much more on the survival of libraries, librarians, and print books has been covered in newspaper, magazine, and journal articles, not forgetting lectures, podcasts, panels, campaigns, etc. The words ‘relevant’, ‘digital age’, innovate’, ‘and ‘change’ appear frequently in the titles of these articles and presentations. I’m curious why these topics has been hyped so much in the press. The way “library survival” is discussed in the media seems almost doomsday-ish. “What will happen?!?! Panic!! Disaster!!” I wonder why. Is it because of the rise of e-Books, smartphones, and other devices? Or it is because of the budget cuts that so many libraries are experiencing across the country? Or something else entirely?

From where do you think this anxiety is comes? How much is based in reality and how much is just misunderstanding of libraries and the librarian profession?

Also, fellow librarians, what do you say when you encounter naysayers of the future of libraries? Have you developed an automatic response after hearing these questions so often?

Library and Librarian Positive Reads:

Who Needs a Librarians When You Have Google?

Neil Gaiman’s Why Our Future Depends on Librarians, Reading, and Daydreaming

The Digital Age is Forcing Libraries to Change. Here’s What That Looks Like.

What Can Libraries Do To Survive in the Digital Age?

Twin Cities Libraries Innovate to Stay Relevant in the Digital Age