all is not well in academic publishing

On Sunday I received an e-mail telling me, and another 15 or so authors, that a book publication we had been associated with since 2011 was no longer going to be published because the collection editors could not reach agreement over how to acknowledge their contribution. The editor from WAC Clearinghouse sent this first e-mail. This email was shortly followed by an 'explanation' email from collection editor 1, who had, in particular been in regular contact with me over the last two years. I responded offering my feelings of disappointment but also noting that given her explanation, I understood the seemingly principled position she had taken. Given my evaluation of the situation presented by these emails, everything smacked of a battle of egos at the expense of the 15 or so authors whose work would no longer see the  light of 'publication' day. Then another e-mail today from collection editor 2 - also to explain her interpretation of the fall-out that had occurred between these two academics, which resulted in the publisher pulling the volume because of the impasse. Then a response from the editor 1 - saying something like 'hope you can find another place to publish your work'. This new information has not seen me shift from my initial feelings that this whole sad, sorry affair was essentially a selfish battle of egos.

I'm completely pissed off. I feel like hitting reply all and SCREAMING at these two idiot editors and imploring them to think less about themselves, and who offended who more, and think more about everyone else so negatively affected by this really ridiculous and disastrous turn of events. This impasse occurred right at the 11th hour - with the publisher trying to negotiate an amicable solution and get the final sign-off.

Unfortunately, its not so simple to re-jig the chapter to make it more suitable for publication in a journal. This piece was written specially for this special volume coming off the back of a conference that happened in 2010. So things are dated and a lot of what I've written here was published in HERD in 2012. So although the argument is fundamentally different, I rely on the same data, and thus I run the risk of self-plagiarism - especially if I want to publish in a journal. For now I'm still blowing off steam. What I do or don't do with this written piece will have to wait until my head is clear.
It's a novice researcher and academic writer's response; to be so pissed off and irritated by such bad behaviour simply because I need the publication so badly. Otherwise I could just brush this whole unfortunate escapade aside and say knowingly 'I could have seen something like this happening. Oh well, who cares!'