When I wrote "They provided no editorial input" in my post, I meant they gave me no reason whatsoever for the rejection (which is very common for fiction publishers, but I'm new to nonfiction so I'm still learning).
You can generally Google anything for definitions. To make sure I was using the trite phrase correctly, I Googled "sacred cow and got this:
sacred cow definition. Figuratively, anything that is beyond criticism
Within their scope means (I wasn't clear, sorry): They have an agenda that deals with up-to-date issues on a national scale; my article went way beyond that (citing historical examples and international issues), and therefore was an amateurish attempt at seeking publication (which does not mean the article might not be good for another publisher).
The reason I posted (besides the hilarious 1 hour turnaround) is that I was able to identify what was wrong with the article easily, something that is usually difficult for me with fictional story rejections. I thought other members might weigh in (offer input) on this dichotomy.
As an aside: In reviewing my original post, it seems that I misused the word "neither" ; should it be either????
Last edited by jimr; 11-09-2015 at 09:47 AM..