I have written about the hardships of academic rejection before. All of us come up with our own ways of dealing with yet another article or grant proposal being rejected in painfully offensive terms. So I came up with a way to provide myself with a psychological safety net for dealing with academic rejection, which is backfiring in a very curious way.
Now, when I submit an article for publication to a prestigious journal (especially, if the article deals with a controversial issue such as, for example, collective identity), I immediately follow it up by submitting another article to a much less prestigious journal. The idea here is to have something to fall back on psychologically when the article gets rejected by the more prestigious publication. Weird, I know, but how much rejection can a person take and not lose all faith in themselves?
Strangely, however, this system has been producing the opposite results. I would get an article accepted by the prestigious journal and have a similar article refused by the non-prestigious one. The most recent pair of articles dealt with collective identity in the contemporary Spanish novel. One of them was accepted by a very respectable journal, which only requested some minor changes. The other article was rejected by a place that (as I learned to my horror after submitting the article to them) has published some people who are complete and utter ignoramuses and quacks. The reason for the rejection was (and I quote) that "the theme of the novel is clear and does not warrant an extensive analysis." This third-grade level terminology in a discussion of literary criticism makes it painfully obvious how low the journal's standards are.
It looks like the time has come for me to revise my publication strategies.