Article
BAMOS April 2021
17
• " One other major flaw of the paper is the total lack of question and / or hypothesis to justify the work done ."
I was also sent many examples of totally contradictory reviews on the same paper :
Reviewer A : " The Introduction is a holy mess , to be totally frank ."
Reviewer B : " I enjoyed reading the paper . It is on the whole very well written ."
A CLEX researcher highlighted a paper — one that I think is profoundly important — took nine submissions before it was accepted . Another researcher took part in 12 proposals in a row before one was accepted . I think , although I cannot prove it , that the more important the paper , or the more innovative the idea , the harder it is to get published .
So what do we learn from all this ?
1 . Science can be a brutal career where you are subject to harsh criticism by anonymous reviewers . Given I ’ ve published a few papers , I have probably experienced more of the ' harsh criticism ' than most of you . I wrote a grant proposal around five years ago where one of the reviewers described my publication record as ' mediocre ' ( ouch ) and my research field as ' peripheral '. The best paper I think I ever wrote was rejected by Nature , then Nature Climate Change and then GRL and in my view each time because one of the reviewers did not actually read the paper . That sucked . You can still see a large chip on my left shoulder if you look .
2 . There is an old adage : ‘ If you ’ ve never had a paper rejected , you ’ re obviously not aiming high enough ’. I know of people who were upset that a paper submitted to ( say ) Nature Climate Change was rejected who then decided not to submit to ( say ) Journal of Climate . Being rejected by Nature , GRL , ERL , PNAS and so on is often a decision by an editor about how broad the readership is , not about how good the science is .
3 . Like everyone , I take rejection personally . However , in hindsight , and in the cold light of day , if I go back over a review of a paper rejected ( after I have kicked the cat - figuratively of course — or vented appropriately at whoever will listen ) I can usually see how a reviewer has got the wrong end of the stick . And of course , they get the wrong end because I have not explained clearly enough which end they should grab . In short , although I am loathed to admit it , some of my rejections can be traced back to my not having quite explained things clearly .
4 . Don ’ t take rejection personally ( contradicting # 3 of course ) and don ’ t give up . Of course , you will take rejection personally , we all do , but get over it quickly , re-assess and re-group and resubmit ( after fixing what needs to be fixed of course ).
5 . I used to have a policy of finishing a paper , putting it in a filing cabinet for a month , taking it out and re-reading it before mailing the five copies to a journal . Yes , yes , I know … you may not know what a filing cabinet is , and the notion of popping five copies of a manuscript in an envelope might seem arcane . I think there is genuine value in putting a completed paper aside for a week and then re-reading before you submit it . It is amazing how many trivial errors you spot .
6 . When you write a review , leave it for 24 hours after you have finished it and re-read as if you were the author of the paper . Is the language appropriate ? How might that author feel about the language you have used ? Can you say the same thing a little more empathetically ?
7 . If you are an editor read the reviews . You should not forward insulting language to the authors .
So , rejection is part of science and it hurts . If you work in science you cannot avoid rejection — everyone experiences it , even the very best in the world . It is not the case that the top scientists avoid rejection and I think the very best work — the most transformative work — can be hardest to publish . Whatever , rejection does not mean you are a poor scientist — it can mean you are doing confronting science that the reviewers do not like because you have cast doubt on their own work .
In short , hang in there , never give up , revise and resubmit where possible — and never give up .
Andy ’ s piece was originally published in the 24 March 2021 ARC CLEX issue of the ‘ Hump Day Tip ’ series . These are sent every Wednesday by COO Stephen Gray . In the following week ’ s issue , Stephen penned a follow up to Andy ’ s piece highlighting a peer reviewed
article demonstrating how unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately impact underrepresented groups in STEM — particularly those with intersectional minority status ( ie . women of colour ). The paper concludes with set of principles to guide better feedback — Ed .