An eye-opener from this paper rejection: while I am disappointed and frustrated, the "grown-ups" (PIs) without exception are quite happy.
GradAdvisor: "Once we strengthen the paper with the functional experiment and a few other things, it's really going to become a great paper. It got rejected because the reviewers thought that if we wanted to overturn the textbooks, we had to provide exceptionally good evidence. And we will!"
PostdocAdvisor: "I don't understand why you are sad. They left the door open, right [for de novo submission]? Anytime that happens, I am just ecstatic, because I am expecting the door to be slammed in my face."
CollaboratorPI in another country: "I think this is quite good news."
Although I am a bit chagrined not to receive the commiseration I expected to get from a paper rejection (and bonus nutty reviewer), it sure is educational.
The PIs seem to have one thing in common: they are all taking the long view. It's a small setback, they say, but the interest the reviewers express in the main finding is terrific, and though it may take some time and trouble to strengthen the paper as needed, the end result will be just that: a stronger paper with greater credibility.
It's harder for me to feel any enthusiasm for these reviews, presumably because I'm a trainee and take a shorter-term view of the results ("I'm going to have to sink a helluva lot more time into this project.") But I respect these PIs, and their opinions are starting to help me look ahead, rather than at my plodding feet.
So that's my droplet of education for this week.
15 years ago
7 comments:
oh good!! i figure, even though you have to sink a lot more time into this it's always better to not have been outright rejected. at least you have the chance to redo it :) yeah, i'm looking on the bright side!!
They left the door open, right [for de novo submission]? Anytime that happens, I am just ecstatic, because I am expecting the door to be slammed in my face."
Precisely!
You are going to come around to the other side of this (from thinking they hated it... to going- hey that's not so bad and they want to see it again... when reading the same set of reviews)... it's only a matter of time and experience!
At least they're all in agreement!
No, no, this is not because they are wiser-than-you.
They are so calm 'cause they have TENURE
Experience does matter here- it's hard not to be pessimistic but even that "bonus" (love that term) reviewer sometimes has something to contribute. PI's have the benefit of having overseen many papers and maybe know that while it's hard when in the middle of receiving this feedback, once the paper's out you may well find yourself saying you're glad Dr. X asked for that functional expt. Hang in there!
well, here's the thing. PIs are, on the whole, psychologically damaged people.
To put up with constant rejection, most of them swing the other way and adopt an unrealistically optimistic view. And while they have their own best interests at heart, they don't necessary think realistically about yours.
Yes, they can look at the long run. You can't. You have to seriously ask yourself how long is this going to take, because it's probably going to take a LOT longer than your PIs are saying (and at least as long as you expect, if not longer).
re: "bonus" nutty reviewer- I think you get at least one per paper at the big journals, and if I'm not mistaken, your paper went to a pretty big journal. So it's not a bonus, it's a gift-with-purchase.
Anyway, hang in there. You're not alone. Revising and resubmitting is a normal part of life in academia these days. But despite what anyone says, nobody really like it!
Post a Comment