Is replying to a rejection notice of any use?

[ScriptMaster]

Just wondering if it is a waste of time to use the Reply option when I receive a rejection notice.

This was the suggested change:

"Yet others have suffered because fog, or snow, or [a] low cloud has disorientated them. "

In my opinion, the editor is wrong, and changing the sentence as advised, by inserting "a", changes the meaning of the sentence. I used the Reply option, making this point. Will this result in the article being reconsidered, or should I resubmit with a note to the editor?

[SJHillman]

By low cloud, I assume you mean low cloud cover? As a reader, I might not know what is meant by "low cloud" (assuming this is a general audience article).

[ScriptMaster]

Thanks for the reply.

I think it's clear that "low cloud" means low cloud cover, and that the expression is in common usage e.g. "The trip was abandoned because of low cloud". I believe "cover" is redundant, and I think it's highly unlikely that the average reader would have any trouble understanding exactly what is meant by "low cloud".

Nevertheless, I will alter the sentence and resubmit.

[SJHillman]

I'll chalk in up to regional variations. I've never heard "low cloud" used without "cover" in the northeastern US - and we're experts in cloud cover here; it's a little like being in Ray Bradbury's "All Summer in a Day".

[ScriptMaster]

Wondering about whether or not it's a regional expression, I just did a quick search and here are just two examples from first page. The Uni of Washington in Seattle published this: "Subtropical Low Cloud Response to a Warmer Climate...". The Marine Meteorology Division at NRL in California published this: "Low Cloud Product - Baja California Tutorial".

I also found this: "26 Feb 2012 – A walker was rescued from Yorkshire's second highest peak today after getting lost in low cloud. The 52-year-old man called for help from the ..."

Now I've realized that the suggested editorial change was to match the noun with the verb. I should have used "have" instead of "has"

[SJHillman]

Reminds me of the time the editor rejected an article for spelling but didn't say which word, took me two hours of scrutinizing it before I thought to run the sentence through a spellchecker. I had left an "l" in "million" but after staring at the screen all day, million and milion looked identical >_<

[Celeste Stewart]

I think you're on the right track about the suggested change being related to matching the noun with the verb (has/have).

Original with suggestion:
"Yet others have suffered because fog, or snow, or [a] low cloud has disorientated them."

Alternate versions:
"Yet others have suffered because fog, snow, or low clouds have disorientated them." (I believe that when the last item is plural, the entire list becomes plural. Don't quote me on this I haven't looked it up recently.)
"Yet others have suffered because fog, or snow, or low cloud cover has disorientated them." (Each item is singular and used as such thanks to "or." -- ie because fog has disoriented... because snow has disoriented... or because low cloud cover has disoriented))
"Yet others have suffered because fog, snow, and low cloud cover have disorientated them." (The singular items become plural thanks to "and." -- ie, because these items {fog, snow, and low cloud cover} have disoriented them...)

As far as regional use, in California and other U.S. states and territories where I've lived, we refer to "low cloud cover" to mean a wide area of low clouds. We might also describe it as an area with "low clouds" but not as "low cloud" unless we were referring to one isolated low cloud in which case it would have an "a" or "the" in front of it. Where I live, we call also call low clouds along the coastline the "marine layer."

As far as replying back, I'd pick my battles. In this example, there are multiple ways to go and potential regional differences. If you can tweak the sentence so that the subject and verb agree and the sentence is clearer to most readers, then that's a good lesson. Despite your initial annoyance with the editors, they got you thinking and you ultimately discovered something about that sentence's construction.

[ScriptMaster]

Hi Celeste,

Thanks for your comprehensive reply. I had already resubmitted with your first recommended alternative, and the article has now been accepted.

In Britain and Ireland, "low cloud" is synonymous with "low cloud cover" and, I think, most often used, with "cloud" becoming a collective noun. I think "cover" is redundant because all cloud "covers." For example, "the hilltops were obscured by low cloud."

I was not annoyed by the editorial decision, but, because I missed the incorrect use of the verb, I disagreed with the suggested change. As an experienced hill and mountain walker, a single low cloud, which the editorial suggestion would have implied, would be of no concern to me. I would just wait a few minutes until it drifted away. On the other hand, if the cloud base descends below the walking altitude, that could cause serious problems. Had the editor highlighted the incorrect verb rather than suggesting the insertion of the indefinite article, there would have been no confusion on my part.

SJHilman - I always use spelling and grammar checks and put every article through Paperrater before submitting. Neither picked up on the incorrect verb, and my own thorough proofreading missed it as well.

Going back to my original question, does anybody know if replying to a rejection notice could result in an article being accepted without resubmission?

[Celeste Stewart]

If you reply and the editor agrees, you would still need to resubmit the article I think. I'm not sure what type of access the editors have as far as the system goes.

[jak]

I have used the comment section on the resubmission page to disagree with an editor, explaining the reason (it was just about the use of initial caps on something the ed thought was not a proper noun - understandable because it was a UK organisation someone in the US may not be familiar with). The article was then accepted.

[ScriptMaster]

As I understand it, the problem with doing it that way is that the initial rejection will count against you in your writer stats.

[jak]

[quote="ScriptMaster"]As I understand it, the problem with doing it that way is that the initial rejection will count against you in your writer stats.[/quote]

I have no doubt you're right, but I wouldn't let that worry me.

[ScriptMaster]

A 60% approval rate is required to be eligible for Writer Pools. It would be frustrating to fall below 60% when a rejection was based on an editor's misunderstanding. That's why I think it's important that CC should have a mechanism for reversing an editorial decision and the consequent hit on the writer's stats.

[LanaPettey]

I just got my article on herding dogs sent back for corrections. My use of the words "livestock" and "stock" was questioned and the word "littermates" was suggested. I didn't come anywhere close to mentioning littermates! Am I going to get rejected because I insisted that "livestock" IS the correct term? I sent an explanation in the comment box.

[ScriptMaster]

In what context did you use "livestock" and "stock"?