8-minute read

Dermot Feenan

LLB MA LLM Barrister-at-Law FRSA

.

A common frustration for most writers and journalists, I suspect, is when the target publisher takes ages to decide upon submitted work. The frustration is exacerbated when the work is time-sensitive. Usually, a bit of persistence pays off and a decision arrives. But when a publisher delays, and delays again and again, when editors fail to respond, and when the process for managing submissions operates poorly, it’s time to re-assess whether the publisher is fit for purpose. 

That’s why I’ll no longer be submitting work to openDemocracy under current editorship after such an experience. But this blogpost isn’t about sharing frustration; it’s a public service warning for hard-working writers who value their labour and craft and who are thinking of submitting to openDemocracy. And, it sends a message to openDemocracy: clean up your act. 

So, to the facts. On 16 April 2018, I emailed copy to Claire Provost editor of openDemocracy’s “50.50” section, which covers gender, sexuality, and social justice. I’d published with openDemocracy twice before, once in long-form. 

The copy submitted to 50.50 was also a long-form article that examined the infamous trial of rugby players in Belfast for rape and sexual offences that ended with their acquittal in March 2018. The article argued that the trial and surrounding circumstances revealed disturbing truths about gender in Northern Ireland, and that the role of activists there may have important lessons for elsewhere. 

The copy drew upon years of professional expertise in Northern Ireland as a lecturer, researcher, and therapist specialising in gender and sexuality. This expertise is based in part on commissioned research for bodies such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and Commissioner for Judicial Appointments for Northern Ireland. Peer-reviewed output from that research has been published in leading international journals, including Feminist Legal Studies and the Journal of Law and Society. 

Delays

A week passed without any acknowledgement of the copy. On 23 April, I emailed Provost to check if she had received the copy, and apologised if the article was currently under consideration and a reply pending. I took the opportunity to copy in Rosemary Bechler, Editor, openDemocracy, in case the email address for Provost listed on the openDemocracy webpage was no longer operative and contact could be facilitated otherwise. 

I received no response from Provost or Bechler. 

On 23 May, I emailed Mary Fitzgerald, Editor-in-Chief at openDemocracy asking if she might assist in obtaining a decision. I included all previous communications with Provost and Bechler in the email thread. 

Given the lack of any response from openDemocracy to previous communications, I updated the copy to take account of interim developments. This was noted in the email, and the updated copy attached. The email was copied to Provost and Bechler. 

Fitzgerald did not reply. Instead, I received a response within six minutes from Provost apologising for ‘missing’ my emails. There was no indication that Provost had read the copy. Provost stated that “we have a very full calendar on 50.50 over the next few weeks, and are currently inundated with article proposals.” 

Provost continued: “We do not publish longer essays like this, with very few exceptions”. 

Provost then, remarkably, proceeded to inform me of submission guidelines to 50.50. 

She added: “openDemocracy’s mainsite works differently, though, and if you are keen to have your piece on oD then they are willing to have a look at it.” 

Provost copied the email to Bechler. 

I acknowledged Provost’s email and asked Bechler if I could leave the copy for her consideration. Bechler replied the same day, indicating that she would “try and get back to [me] ASAP”. 

Two weeks passed. Bechler didn’t follow-up. On 12 June, I emailed Bechler asking if she had read the copy. In the interim, there had been some further developments in the story. I amended the copy again, reducing the word count to 2,646 words. I attached it to the email, pointing out the amendments. 

A further week passed: still no response from Bechler. On 20 June, I emailed Bechler requesting a decision on the copy. Bechler replied that day: “We sent this on to Claire Provost who is editor of the 50.50 gender section… Could you please ask her what is happening. If you don’t get a reply please contact me again.” 

So, back to square one. Bechler didn’t copy Provost into the email – which would have been appropriate given the reference to the copy being sent to Provost. 

By this stage, the copy (updated as necessary) had been with openDemocracy for ten-and-half-weeks. None of the editorial staff had apparently read it. 

I emailed Provost immediately after receiving Bechler’s response, advising that I had been informed by Bechler to contact her regarding the copy and looked forward to her response. 

Nine days passed. Provost didn’t reply. This, recall, was the third occasion when Provost had failed to respond to email. 

Accordingly, on 29 June, I emailed Bechler as requested. I asked her for a decision by 5.00pm the following Monday, 2 July, in order to determine whether or not to seek timely publication of the copy elsewhere. 

Bechler’s response that day was: “I’m sorry I can’t undertake this by July 2 because I am out of the country and not at my desk. I think you should take elsewhere. I will be talking to our gender section about this non-response – which is rude. I apologise for this, Rosemary.” 

When I showed the email to a colleague, the response was: “She’s just washed her hands of it”. Bechler took no steps to contact Provost to check whether she had or would read the copy, nor to read the copy herself – which was still accessible on the email thread on which she’d replied. 

Following Bechler’s email on 29 June, there was still no communication from Provost. If Bechler had indeed talked to the gender section headed by Provost, this, too, produced no apology for conduct that Becher termed ‘rude’. I would probably describe the conduct differently: inability or unwillingness to fulfil editorial responsibilities. 

Concerns about standards and values

As a former editor of a newspaper and an ongoing editor of numerous academic collections, I found openDemocracy’s handling of this copy to be shoddy. 

I might have dismissed this encounter as an unfortunate one-off matter, but I’ve encountered similar conduct in two previous exchanges with openDemocracy. A previous piece on class, diversity and the BBC was submitted in 2017 to the openDemocracy section on the BBC. It languished for a month without a reply. 

The openDemocracy website states: “We endeavour to give our editors three weeks to look over your piece – please be patient while we get back to you. If a response takes longer than this, we apologise in advance.” 

I emailed Mary Fitzgerald and the openDemocracy submissions team about that copy. Again, there was no reply from Fitzgerald. Bechler emailed stating she would look at it. Another week passed: nothing. Five weeks after the initial submission, I emailed Fitzgerald again asking for a decision. Again, no reply. I received an email from someone called Phoebe Braithwaite stating that the piece was to be published. Braithwaite was the editor of the section. The article was published later that day, with incorrect author information – which I had to request Braithwaite to amend. 

On a separate occasion in early 2018, I noticed that an article on social class – which was otherwise excellent – contained a few legal inaccuracies. I notified the editor, Bechler. Some of the corrections were adopted, but one was not. The sub-heading remains legally incorrect. 

Lessons

This blogpost may assist other writers who invest labour, cost, and legitimate expectation in a timely decision by a publisher. 

The problem with many publishers is that there’s no equivalent of online ratings of service, such as with TripAdvisor, that would help make an informed judgement about the publisher’s responsiveness, quality of editing, payment arrangements etc. to help decide whether to submit. Instead, many contributors are left at the mercy of largely unaccountable publishers. Lack of accountability can easily lead to poor service. 

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) states that journals should have a clearly described process for handling complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board or publisher. COPE is committed to educate and support editors, publishers and those involved in publication ethics with the aim of moving the culture of publishing towards one where ethical practices becomes the norm, part of the publishing culture. openDemocracy has no complaints procedure. So, if like me you’ve been let down, they offer no recourse for accountability: which is another reason for going public with this blogpost. 

The unusual relationship between openDemocracy’s ‘Main site’ and its sections might also escape the attention of some contributors and might give rise to the risk of disconnect between the values that most reasonable people would associate with openDemocracy and the operation of its sections. 

openDemocracy states that: “Through [its] reporting and analysis of social and political issues, [it] seeks to educate citizens to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. With human rights as our central guiding focus, and open mindedness as our method, we ask tough questions about freedom, justice and democracy.” 

The sections are nominally ‘independent’ editorially and financially from the ‘Main site’. The Main site states that these sections “raise their own funding in parallel to the funding to the Main site and contribute to our core running costs via the platform fee”. Despite this nominal ‘independence’, openDemocracy clearly presents these sections on its landing page as part of openDemocracy (see below).

Indeed, each landing page replicates the look of openDemocracy – giving the appearance that each section is part of openDemocracy, as is the case with 50.50 (see below). 

openDemocracy states that the Main site is “the hub of the organisation, providing the operational and technological infrastructure supporting all sections”. It adds: “With a small central editorial team the Main Site ensures powerful ongoing analysis and debate around key issues of rights, equality and justice.” 

Given the values which openDemocracy espouses, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be processes in place to ensure that “free thinking” is facilitated, that rights (including the right to freedom of expression) are supported, and that equality is protected.

A survey of the personnel and publishing in 50.50 might very well give rise to reasonable questions about compliance with those values, which could be a concern to the Board of openDemocracy and the funders of 50.50. The platform currently receives US $180,000 from Oak Foundation to, amongst other things, “strengthen the platform’s editorial capacities and improve its learning, monitoring and evaluation system.” 

Serious questions

Serious questions arise regarding 50.50, and its editorship. Recall that 50.50 states that it covers “gender, sexuality and social justice”.

The 50.50 editorial team of 16 since 2006 comprises no men (see below). 

Provost stated in her reasons for not proceeding with the copy: “We also do not publish longer essays like this, with very few exceptions”. Recall, however, that Bechler claimed that Provost was provided with the updated copy, whose cover email indicated that amendments reduced the length of the copy. That copy was 2,646 words (including a caption). In the period between 16 April 2018 and 2 July 2018, Provost oversaw the publication of several articles of similar length (5 June, 2,645 words; 23 May, 2,608 words; 5 May, 3,435 words; 10 May, 2,697 words; including captions). Of these articles, two were co-authored by Provost herself. One was 2,697-words long. The other was co-authored with the Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy, Mary Fitzgerald. 

It may also be helpful for the Board of openDemocracy and funders to reflect on why in a section on gender, sexuality and rights only one article out of 27 in the aforementioned period was solo-authored by a man (Peter Geoghegan, investigations editor at openDemocracy) (another article was co-authored by a man and woman). 

Most of my professional and voluntary work in legal activism and academic research challenges discrimination on the basis of gender and sexuality. I’m concerned if opportunities are closed off to anyone on the basis of their gender or sexuality, and don’t hesitate to use all lawful means to challenge unlawful or inappropriate behaviour.

My research and writing in this field continues, and the copy is out for placement elsewhere. I’ll be keeping an eye on the editorship at openDemocracy. It often publishes world-class investigative reporting, such as on ‘dark money’ financing of Brexit. I hope for the best for openDemocracy, but fear that without proper editorial control in place it’ll risk failing its contributors and subverting its own values. 

And that’s why the header to this piece refers to ‘current editorship’. The problem isn’t just with processes or systems. There’s been a problem at the top of openDemocracy for some time. Maybe the solution is to bring in some new blood. 

And if openDemocracy does so and its submission process is up to scratch, I’ll be happy to report it here.

.

© Dermot Feenan 2018