I’m pleased to share that Anthropology and Medicine has accepted my latest article for publication. You’ll soon be able to find “Enchanting with paperwork: epistemic pluralism and Western herbalists in the United States” at their website.

Many thanks to the anonymous reviewers at Medical Anthropology Quarterly and Anthropology and Medicine, as well as the editors of both journals, for shepherding this paper towards the points I wanted to make with it. Two rounds of revise and resubmit, and several rounds of rejections have vastly sharpened the argument and how I support it.

I think we don’t talk often enough about how many rejections one receives when trying to publish good work. I won’t claim that this article is perfect – far from it, and I look forward to further constructive criticism as I continue to write. But rejection, revision, and rethinking are irreplaceable components of a good process of scholarship.

One of my reviewers in the early stages asked to be unblinded to me. This was a delight, and helpful for understanding her comments on my work. There’s much more to be said about the strength of unblinded peer review, when done right and thoroughly – this post isn’t the place for it, but it’s coming. Anonymity, in today’s internet culture, doesn’t automatically lead to better outcomes. In some instances it’s important, and in others, it holds back what can become real and meaningful exchanges, stronger exchanges than those kept double-blinded.

Here’s to editors and journals that thoughtfully consider when it’s right to unblind a reviewer, and how to navigate that.