venting some spleen

There's a little part of me that says, "Bad idea! Don't post angry!" I'm ignoring that little part of me.

I really shouldn't be bitter. After all, in a two-week period I've had an article accepted for publication and signed the copyright for it, making it official. I've also had an article receive the coveted "revise and resubmit" verdict. So a rejection shouldn't be a big deal, right?

Perhaps if it hadn't been so mean-spirited. Or maybe I'm just reading it as mean-spirited. Maybe I'll see it differently in the morning. It just seems like when reviewers think the article should be revised and resubmitted, the editor would at least give it a chance. Instead, the editor basically said, "Nope, your argument for your study is stupid." Worded more eloquently, of course, but the message is the same: you don't know how to do research studies with the big dogs of literacy studies. Which is fine-- that's why I submitted my study to an English education journal, not a literacy journal.

Do only "big dogs" get to publish? How does anyone become a big dog in such a setting? I don't want to be a big dog. I just want to get tenure. Can't senior professors be nice in their treatment of assistant professors' offerings?