cut and run
I have been waiting (since Feb.) for comments on a paper from a very important non-author. Those comments came through last night and the biggest one suggests we submit to a bigger journal which is more likely to result in a(nother) rejection. Plus, it will require cutting almost half the word count. Ack.
I don't think I want to do it. Despite loving the chance for a bigger journal, it could be submitted as is on Friday to the smaller but solid journal I had in mind. It just needs to be over. There is a backlog of other projects, trying to figure out (and write?) a postdoc and the ol' diss. My advisor agrees with me. My labmate agrees with me. My coauthor? Wants to cut it down.
Why, oh why won't this project end?
Labels: pubs, touchy subjects, writing
posted by DancingFish at 9:17 PM
4 Comments:
Go for the smaller one as-is. The impact factor of journals seems to matter less and less. I find most of my papers through automated searches rather than by reading whole tables of content, and good papers will generally be found, read and cited as long as they're not in some sketchy non-indexed journal.
Good luck!
I say go for the small one. There is no shame in it.
cae and seeking solace: I wish you guys were my coauthors! No clue what they are thinking. I am trying to be stern, practical and honest about my feelings about it. Trying to be supportive but requesting a timeline and deadline for submission. Hopefully a long look at it will make them realize it isn't worth it.
Thanks for the advice!
Oof. I once had to submit a paper at least six different times because we were aiming for higher profile journals than the we should have. It was really painful, but in the end, the paper did get into a journal I would've thought it had no chance of getting into. So sometimes you do get lucky, but I'm not sure it was worth that much work....
Post a Comment
<< Home