What is the meaning when the editor says a paper is "provocative"?

Question

Here is a letter of rejection sent by Quarter Journal of Economics, to a big name professor. This letter is publicly available online.

Many thanks for your interesting and provocative paper. I have received a referee report on your piece, and I have read it myself. There are certainly many smart things in the piece, but ultimately, I think it is more appropriate for a more specialized journal. Your points are often well-taken, but really didn't convince me, or the referee, to question the standard interpretation of the data. I could imagine a paper on similarity relations which convincingly made the case for this approach being acceptable to us, but this side of the current paper is not really worked out.

Ultimately, this seems like a critique of the current approach which is right in many ways, but criticisms and extensions of existing research are best sent to more specialized outlets.

The editor says the submitted paper is "provocative", a word that seems "provocative" and "intentionally insulting" by itself. The dictionary definition of "provocative" is:

Causing annoyance, anger, or another strong reaction, especially deliberately.

Did I misinterpret that meaning?

Google says,

provocative /prəˈvɒkətɪv/

adjective

• causing anger or another strong reaction, especially deliberately.

  "a provocative article"

  Similar:

  annoying irritating exasperating infuriating provoking maddening
  goading vexing galling affronting insulting offensive inflaming
  rousing arousing agitational inflammatory incendiary controversial
  aggravating in-your-face
  

• intended or intending to arouse sexual desire or interest.

  "a provocative sidelong glance"

  Similar:

  sexy sexually arousing sexually exciting alluring seductive tempting
  suggestive inviting tantalizing titillating indecent pornographic
  indelicate immodest shameless erotic sensuous slinky passionate sexual
  piquant racy juicy risqué raunchy steamy coquettish amorous
  flirtatious come-hither kinky tarty
  

I checked "provocative" in other dictionaries. Some include another meaning like "thought-provoking", but some do not. So I am looking for the true definition of "provocative". Here, does "provocative" mean "though-provoking" by "causing anger"?

Answer 1

I do not think "provocative" in this context is 'provocative' ;).

I read the rejection letter to mean: You are attacking the current consensus, and this causes me (the editor and the putative reader) to think. But you did not convince me in your approach, so, I am not willing to give you a platform. The paper has merits and should be published, but elsewhere.

Provocative in this circumstances means something like "rocking the boat". As strong claims demand strong evidence, a rejection for this type of paper is more likely. The editor seems to think that the validation is too thin. Some rocking the boat is necessary for progress, but its value should be determined by specialists, who will be able to reassess what the general public in the field is not apt to do.

I do not know the case nor the field, nor the type of journal, but this is not a bad rejection letter. It gives a clear path forward: Make your case to the specialists first or support strong claims with strong evidence.

Answer 2

No, the editor is not implying that the article angered them. In academia, provocative is usually used with a positive connotation (as in: thought-provoking, something that any academic article strives to be). Read the context of the email carefully - the editor found your article to be "interesting and provocative".

Unfortunately, the editor goes on to say that "criticism of existing approaches are best sent to more specialised outlets". This is a bit dubious by itself, but should probably be understood in combination with "really didn't convince me, or the reviewer" - as in, the editor felt that your paper made some good arguments, but not sufficiently convincing to warrant acceptance at this (presumably fairly widely read?) general journal.

Answer 3

As @tschwartz points out, the term "provocative" in this context is not meant to be taken negatively. The editor finds the arguments in the paper to be thought-provoking, intriguing, meritorious, interesting etc. but not substantive enough to warrant publication in a journal with a general scope since they only point out some flaws in existing methods without proposing a different framework. In general, it would be surprising to me to hear of an editor using the term in to express disapproval of a paper in a discussion with the author.

Answer 4

Taking the totality of their comments, the editor would like to communicate that the paper isn't interesting/impactful enough for this journal.

Many thanks for your interesting and provocative paper

This is standard "praise before you criticize" politeness. As others have said, "provocative" is a positive in this academic context, especially paired with "interesting". You could rewrite this sentence "your paper is interesting and made me think". However, this is just standard praise. It's meant to prepare to let someone down lightly. Do not worry more about the use of this word "provocative", it has nothing to do with why the paper has been rejected.

There are certainly many smart things in the piece, but ultimately, I think it is more appropriate for a more specialized journal.

More standard praise ("many smart things"), followed by the let-down "more appropriate for a more specialized journal"; this means "your paper isn't important/remarkable/impactful enough for this journal".

Your points are often well-taken, but really didn't convince me, or the referee, to question the standard interpretation of the data.

It sounds like the paper is critiquing the standard interpretations/analysis procedures in other papers. The editor feels that while those critiques have merit, they wouldn't impact the conclusions of the standard procedure enough to be paradigm-shifting. I don't think it's that more is needed to convince the editor that the critiques are correct, but rather that they aren't convinced the critiques are impactful. One might consider the aphorism "all models are wrong, but some are useful": it may be that the paper successfully shows that someone else's model is wrong in some way, but if it hasn't shown that their model isn't useful or that the alternative approach is more useful, then it just isn't that impactful.

I could imagine a paper on similarity relations which convincingly made the case for this approach being acceptable to us

Same as above: the editor is saying that if the paper made a better case for the proposed approach being convincingly better, that paper might be acceptable. As a mere critique of existing work, it isn't.

Ultimately, this seems like a critique of the current approach which is right in many ways, but criticisms and extensions of existing research are best sent to more specialized outlets.

Translation: send this to a specialized journal concerned with the specifics of the methodology in this area. The paper is not being rejected because it's wrong, but because it isn't sufficiently interesting. It's not appropriate to send detailed nit-picky critiques to a journal the principally publishes work that advances the field substantially.

Answer 5

There are enough good answers here already explaining that the word "provocative" is not negative in this context and, if anything, is positive. To those answers I would just like to add that this editor's use of the word "provocative" is in line with the dictionary definition you quote (emphasis mine):

Causing annoyance, anger, or another strong reaction, especially deliberately.

When a paper argues against the status quo of a research field, it is likely to cause strong reactions - not particularly annoyance or anger, but intrigue and intense debate. The paper puts more at stake than a typical paper does, it may imply that a lot of previous research done by other people is flawed in some way, and that may provoke those other researchers to defend the value of their work.

Note that while causing annoyance or anger would be negative, causing a "strong reaction" in general need not be. So to directly answer your question, you have misinterpreted the definition of "provocative" by (it seems) assuming that "another strong reaction" means "another strong negative reaction". It doesn't have to, and here it doesn't.