The new findings do not change any significant conclusions of the paper, although they have helped to constrain possible explanations for our phenomenon and thereby prompted us to be more specific with one of our hypotheses (which is only presented in depth in the Discussion).
Therefore, in my initial revision, I added appropriate parts to the Results and revised/added to the Discussion, but I didn't touch the Intro.
Advisor is suggesting significant rewrites of the Intro and also some of the Results (even portions that aren't related to the new data): not to add in allusions to the new data, but to improve and clarify sentence structure and word choice.
I'm annoyed by this plan. Two reasons:
--I was proud of the manuscript because although Advisor had driven me to rewrite it many times, a lot of the writing was still mine, however edited. So I'm cranky about the proposed changes from (I'll admit) a partly protective, ego-driven standpoint. I feel like this rewrite supplants my voice with Advisor's. I realize that FSP has touched on this attitude recently, but I don't think I'm just being a prima donna here. Though maybe?
--We're on a deadline, and I think we should focus on rewriting and tuning up the new bits. Time is tight, and I don't want to spend it evaluating the Intro unless it's necessary.
Can I get some outside opinions here? Should I just bow to the presumed greater wisdom of the Advisor and suck it up? Do you rewrite unaffected manuscript portions when you have a "revise and resubmit"? And a tight deadline?
Or should I tell Advisor
10 comments:
I have been known to change things weeks after I rewrite them because something new strikes me about the way I worded someting. Do his suggestions make the manuscript stronger? If so, maybe you just gotta deal. If not, then maybe this warrants discussion. After all, he is an author of the paper and isn't one of the primary rules of authorship that you are all responsible for the quality and content of the paper?
Some edits are improvements, some I don't like--but the majority just seem neutral: I don't think they improve clarity, nor do I think they damage it. I'm just resenting the late-hour rewrite.
Fair points about primary authorship though.
If the edits improve or are neutral, go with it - he's co-author.
If the editor/referees didn't ask for any changes in these sections it's OK to treat those you disagree with as you would any disagreement during writing, i.e. a discussion between two people with different levels of experience (both in general and of the data in question - you're each more expert in one sense than the other). But don't hold things up - basically, a PUBLISHED paper and a PERFECT paper are extremely unlikely to ever occupy the same space...
I'm in exactly the same situation but have found in the past that my advisor is always correct on this one. As first author, you are probably too close to the manuscript to "see the forest for the trees" whereas your advisor would be working on several manuscripts/grants etc and has more of an objective view of the paper. Ultimately, advisor's suggestion will likely strengthen the paper, even though that doesn't seem possible right now.
I can totally appreciate where you're coming from, with my head having been stuck in a manuscript for the last two weeks. The last thing you want to do is rewrite something, but you may just have to do it, painful though it seems. Try to throw your "protective" feelings out the window and look at the manuscript objectively.
Since you have the opportunity to revise, you should certainly revise as many portions of the paper as you can if it will add clarity to your overall story. Don't limit yourself to the discussion just because that's the only thing the reviewer's comments apply to.
You may grumble now, but trust your advisor, and you will thank yourself later when the thing is published and the pain of rewrite is long gone.
Do whatever you need to do to get the paper done. I used to be really protective about my wording (and my ego) - not no more. I'm now writing revisions for paper #22 - the reviewers suggested some really dumb shit which the editor would sorta like me to hit on (which doesn't in any way add to the paper - I think a particular reviewer was offended I didn't cite him or his buddy - boo hoo). I could care less at this point - so I'm rewriting my conclusions. I used to get all riled up and do everything possible to stand my ground. But for me personally now, it's about mentally moving on (sign of aging yes, but sign of wisdom or senility, not sure). I want papers to grow legs and run off my desk. I have new cool stuff to be thinking about and dwelling on paragraphs from an accepted paper is kinda like beating a dead horse to me. There will always be paragraphs in a paper long ago that you will look back on and wish you had written it differently or included X, Y, Z... as scientists we really don't have the luxury to obsess over this shit. We have to keep looking forward. Just write it up and git 'er done.
Maybe I haven't emphasized the deadline issue enough. The paper is due back by Monday (and Advisor has promised we would send it out Friday). Getting major (unnecessary) revisions on Wednesday?
I just don't feel as though I have the luxury of batting the words back and forth while we come to an agreement--time is so short, and we haven't even talked about the *actual* revised portions yet. Because Advisor hasn't sent comments on them yet.
I had hoped sleeping on it would help, but I'm still grumpy.
While your advisor should have a more bird's eye view, that doesn't mean that they are any good at using it. It depends on the individual. Editing is a skill not necessarily known by all scientist.
It seems to me that at this stage of the game, revisions should come in the form of clear, simple instructions that take minutes to implement. If you are being given vague requests for rewording that are making you worry about "voice," then there is something wrong with the quality of advice you are getting.
This is what I suggest: First and foremost, be pragmatic. The truth is that if you re-arrange the words reviewers and advisors with FEEL like things have changed a lot, even if changes are trivial, and this will make them happy, like they Contributed. People love to contribute. Pick off all the easy revisions you can, avoid the hard ones that will take actual thinking to implement.
Secondly, rather than listen directly to your advisor's comments, try to guess what he is actually responding too. Maybe a section of paper actually is confusing, which is why he is marking it up. His advice on how to handle the confusion may not be any good, but the fact that he is stopped by that section probably does mean something that you might be able to fix.
Finally, give yourself a deadline and then give permission to stop working on this part once you've reached the deadline. Self-forgiveness is frequently the cure for crankiness.
I feel like this rewrite supplants my voice with Advisor's.
Tough shit. She is your mentor, and the senior/corresponding author of this paper.
Ugh, yeah, if it's hard to see the improvement, it's hard to agree.
I have worked with people who change things out of their own insecurity. It's not any better. It's like a nervous tic.
And people who always rewrite the intro, even when the Discussion needs a lot more work.
I have also worked with people who did have some logic to their improvements, and I had to step back and 'forget' what my writing looked like before in order to look at their changes objectively. In those cases, I could either agree with their changes or at least see where they were going with it.
candid engineer said:
Since you have the opportunity to revise, you should certainly revise as many portions of the paper as you can if it will add clarity to your overall story. Don't limit yourself to the discussion just because that's the only thing the reviewer's comments apply to.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Too many changes also raise the risk of new criticisms where those sections were fine before. Sometimes changing things willy-nilly is just a sign of indecision- it makes you look desperate and unfocused.
Yolio has some good advice. Several people I've worked with were shitty editors, but I was able to figure out what parts to work on based on where they got hung up.
And PP- fuck off. We don't agree that the hierarchy is always composed of emperors with clothes.
How many times have I contacted the corresponding author of a paper just to get the answer "The first author left here long ago and they're the one person who knows."
?
I'll tell you. Way too many times to believe in the whole corresponding author mumbo-jumbo.
Post a Comment