On rejections

Sure enough, just days after I publicly declared the Summer of Submission, I got my first rejection of the summer as well. ScienceGirl had asked how I dealt with rejections in the comments and I wonder how this post would be different if I were still 'awaiting final decision'...


Anyway, this first rejection is a reject with an invitation to resubmit. So it could be worse. My advisor and others faculty are really excited about this response. They are treating it more like a provisional acceptance, despite the fact that the editor specifically wrote 'this is not a provisional acceptance.' I don't have much experience with publishing and the finer nuances and implications of 'reject and resubmit' vs 'revise and resubmit' are lost on me. Basically, we will be re-reviewed after resubmission whereas a 'revise and resubmit' would just be looked over by the editor and not the reviewers. Please feel free to clarify or elaborate in the comments!


My handling of the paper at this stage all depends on the reviews themselves. In this case, they are helpful, positive and easily addressed. The most difficult aspect will be responding to all within the word limit of the paper. With reviews like these, I am eager to fix the paper and get it back out asap. With bad reviews- those that are nonconstructive and, unfortunately, mean- I have a tendency to sit on them and put off dealing with them as long as possible. My worst review was capped with 'the authors should think deeply about what they might be able to salvage from this work.' That one hurt. It took me a year to return to the paper, but eventually I did and it is in review at a different journal right now.


My rosy outlook on reviews stems from learning more about the process and others' experiences. First, I have now been a reviewer myself. From the other side of the review, you can appreciate the time and effort that (hopefully) goes into the reviews and respect that effort more in your revisions. Second, as it turns out- (almost) everyone gets rejected! My advisor gets rejected. The famous scientist that I idolize and get nervous just thinking about talking to? Yeah- gets rejected! The amazing writer who my lab relies on for a lot of editing? Gets rejected! Knowing this makes it much easier to avoid falling into the anxiety ridden hole where poor reviews are judgements of your ability as a scientist or worth as a person. Finally, I am slowly learning that reviews really do make a paper better and that if you stick to it, you will improve the paper and it will get published. It might have taken 18 months to resubmit that paper after the horrible review but the important part is that it got done. If it gets rejected again, well, I will resubmit again. I recently congratulated a fantastic, well respected young faculty member on her most recent paper. It was an interesting, well written and novel piece of science. She told me she had submitted it 5 times before it got accepted. Persistence will pay off eventually.

Summer of Submission

This summer is all about publications. I have a backlog of data that is collected but not published. My advisor has lectured me about it so now is the time to get rid of it. Need to clear the desk and my mind before I power away on dissertation data and papers that are actually about what I really, really do.
Sneks and I collaborate on many of these smaller projects and she also has a bunch of preliminary data and other projects to get out as well, thus we have dubbed this the Summer of Submission. Things got rolling for me at the end of April with the first paper. It was rejected but will be resubmitted elsewhere by Tuesday (just got the last authors comments on the revision today).
Paper #2 is a long overdue thing from my time at my MS institution. It had also been rejected over a year ago but was resubmitted in June. My coauthor has been a source of frustration with this paper. They are doing fieldwork so drop out of touch for a month at a time with no notice. This data is 5 years old and really, it is just time to be able to move on with our lives.
Paper #3 is the one we sent to Schmiance and now sent to somewhere more appropriate*. We should hear very soon. According to the official website we are "Awaiting final decision." This paper is really neat. It is simple but novel. The most exciting thing about it is that we have figures that we submitted for the cover of the journal. If we got the cover, I might faint. That would be the coolest.....
With these 3 out in submission-land, I am starting work on the second round.
Paper #4 is very, very, very small due to horrible field conditions that season that resulted in a super small sample size. It has been a struggle for me to write so my advisor agreed to take it over. For some reason, every time I go to send it on though, I just write more of it. I swear I am sending it today....after I finish the results and make all the graphs.
Paper #5 is a many author, multi-year study. We interpreted the data this week and agreed upon a small journal. It should be fun to write as it relates to my dissertation research.
Paper #6 is a big chapter of dissertation fieldwork and will be what I present at the Big International Conference in August. It will be submitted soon after that talk to include any good feedback I get from it. Once it is out, there is the bonus that a chapter of the diss is also done!

For now, we are waiting and are really hoping to be enjoying an Autumn of Acceptance**.







*If you are noticing a trend that everything I submit is rejected, you are right. All but 1 paper I've ever worked on has been rejected first before being accepted. It has happened enough that I am actually ok with this (not that I have a choice)...
**Thankfully there are two words for this season because the Fall of Failure doesn't sound so good.

RBOC

• As of Saturday morning, I can't move my head to the right. I hope the health center is open tomorrow but I doubt it with the holiday.
• Our paper got rejected. Boo. The reviews were not that bad. They wanted some different analyses and more justification. Alright. That is cool and fixable. There are two parts that suck. First, I may have misinterpreted a paper. This was pointed out by (most likely based on the review) the author of that paper whom I admire and would like it impress. Instead, I look like a stupid ass. Second, I was docked for not knowing some current literature. Like a paper that came out AFTER we submitted. Geez! Given that the reviews weren't that bad, I will stop taking it personally and get down to reworking it soon. Just an unpleasant Saturday night email.
• In anticipation of the impending anniversary, we went to play outside today! Part scouting field sites for V and part hiking in state parks made for a lovely day.
• Our lives have been forever changed. We bought..................a vacuum. My small one was not doing its job with the pet hair problems around this place. Our new one even has special pet-hair attachments! The house has never been cleaner and I have never found cleaning more exciting!

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?