Given the unpleasant speculation circulating on social media, philosopher Alex Byrne kindly agreed to share the rejection email he got from Oxford University Press after submitting the manuscript that was based on the proposal that OUP had put under contract. Professor Byrne stated, in his original essay, that OUP rejected the book for the sole reason that the book "does not treat the subject in a sufficiently serious and respectful way.” Subsequent public information suggested that the manuscript was rejected based on the reports of the four referees (see the descriptions of the reports here,), which led the skeptics to declare that this was all just sour grapes by Professor Byrne, not a case of publishing decisions being determined by political considerations.
In fact, the email rejecting Professor Byrne's manuscript makes clear that it was rejected not based on the referee reports (which are mentioned as an afterthought that might be helpful to Byrne) but based on consultation with OUP "colleagues" and "advisers" who--the email strongly implies--were not the "academic readers." Here is the rejection email (with email addresses removed):
From: Peter Momtchiloff
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 12:43 PM
To: Alex Byrne
Subject: Trouble With GenderDear Alex
Thank you for sending me the manuscript for Trouble with Gender. I have now read it, and consulted with advisers and colleagues. I regret to say that OUP will not be able to publish your book. I am sorry to have to give you a negative response. I’m afraid our judgement is that the book does not treat the subject in a sufficiently serious and respectful way. The same kinds of problems that I found with the introduction we now find continue throughout the book.
I am forwarding a copy of the manuscript which I have annotated. I hope that these comments might be helpful to you.
I shall also forward comments from four academic readers. Whatever you decide about the book, I hope that these will be useful to you. It may be that another publisher would not agree with OUP in finding this treatment of the subject inappropriate, and would be happy to be able to publish the book. Perhaps the comments I send may then prove to be useful to that end.
I am sorry to have to write to you with this decision, since you are a valued OUP author.
With best wishes
Peter
I asked Professor Byrne about the reference to the "same kinds of problems" in the draft introductory chapter. Here is what he said:
“The same kinds of problems that I found with the introduction” refers to Peter’s problems with “tone” in one of my initial drafts of the introduction and first chapter. I allude to this in the Quillette article: “’Happy to revisit anything,’ I wrote in an email, referring to adjustments I had made (mostly small choices of wording) in response to earlier comments from OUP.” As anyone who has worked with Peter will expect, his comments were constructive and helpful.
Here are four representative examples of such adjustments:
“An open letter calling for the retraction of the paper swiftly garnered more than 800 signatories. Some were from the Perpetually Outraged on the internet, but many of the signatories were distinguished academics.” -> “An open letter calling for the retraction of the paper swiftly garnered more than 800 signatories.”
“Please note: this is the American Medical Association, not a group of mendacious activists.” -> “Please note: this is the American Medical Association, whose mission is to ‘promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health’.”
“some fancy-sounding academese -> “unmistakable imprint of gender studies”
“the Dean of the School of Public Health had thrown Littman under the bus” -> “the Dean of the School of Public Health had written a letter to staff and students”.
Comments are open, and will be moderated for relevance. Comments must include your full (actual!) name, and a valid email address (the latter will not appear).
ADDENDUM: Philosopher Neil Levy on Twitter makes the fair point that Peter M. typically refers to referees as "advisers," although the way this is written, it still leaves it unclear what role, if any, the referee reports played in the decision, and what overlap there was between "advisers" and actual referees of the manuscript. (And, to repeat what has been said before, the referee reports were divided between positive and negative, and when a book is under contract, as this was, it is quite irregular to deny the author an opportunity to respond to any negative reports. This, of course, is why most observers think the subject-matter and point of view of the author played a very large role, and in a way that seems inappropriate for an academic press.)
