Research and development
The next challenge I faced was reducing a 20,000 word dissertation to 5,000 words , while also ensuring that the content remained detailed enough for readers . This took me a long time and several edits later – in collaboration with my supervisor – I was ready to submit .
One thing that I was not prepared for was the time it would take to get an outcome to my submission . I was informed that the article had been reviewed briefly by the editors and then sent on for peer review . After that , it was a waiting game .
I was proud of the work I had submitted and felt that the research article was relevant , robust and added to the evidence base , but I had also heard from colleagues that having an article accepted for publication was more difficult than I could imagine .
Several months later I received an email with the outcome decision from the editors ; one reviewer had some favourable comments , but the second reviewer ’ s comments were rather negative .
The editor confirmed that they did not want me to rewrite and resubmit the article and that , in fact , they would not consider it again .
I understand that the peer review process is there to ensure that all research published is robust , but the feedback given did not feel constructive as it did not show me how to move forward .
My confidence was damaged and I was unsure of what to do next . But in my next supervision session , we discussed the need to be resilient as an early career researcher and that rejections are commonplace .
In essence , I started the process again . I began by reviewing a range of journals and author guidelines and editing my manuscript for submission to an international journal . Five months later , I received the outcome . Again , one peer reviewer had favourable comments , but another reviewer did not .
I noticed a pattern here ; both refusals did not provide critique and advice on how to move forward , or how to edit my article appropriately .
The second outcome stated that I could edit and resubmit , but I had less than two weeks to submit a major rewrite , despite waiting five months for an outcome .
I discussed the situation with my supervisor and explained that I felt such feedback should include guidance for early career researchers – how would we know how to improve the manuscript and move forward if the comments only show what we have done wrong ?
My supervisor commented that I needed to think about how I could provide this feedback to editors and so I sent a letter to the editor of the international journal , explaining how their feedback had made me feel and how I thought it was important for journals
My top tips for early career researchers
Use and understand the author guidelines , so that you submit your manuscript to appropriate journals .
Seek support from colleagues and know that you are not the first person to have a manuscript rejected and you won ’ t be the last .
If you feel that your research has worth and validity , you need to take on board feedback given and take time to edit your article appropriately . When resubmitting , most journals ask you to write a response demonstrating how you have edited your article in response to the reviewer comments – this takes time so bear that in mind .
It can be useful to join a writing group as access to peer support can be invaluable .
Reducing a 20,000 word assignment down to 5,000 words is a very difficult task , perhaps focus on one particular element of your research , so that you can present this in-depth .
Finally , if you do not understand the feedback , don ’ t be afraid to write to the editor for clarification – you may find that they will be happy to support you in moving forward .
to provide constructive advice , which could guide early career researchers in the right direction .
In response , the editor sent me a copy of my manuscript with tracked comments on how it could be improved and made appropriate for the journal readership . Such comments on the manuscript reflect the way that lecturers often provide feedback on assignments submitted by OT students – indicating how improvements can be made , so that they can incorporate this knowledge into their next assignment .
The editor ' s comments really made me think about the key points that I wanted to communicate and taught me how to use the author guidelines to structure my writing .
I resubmitted my rewrite and was overjoyed when , a few weeks later , I received notification that the manuscript , co-written with my supervisor , had been accepted for publication .
I learnt that as an early career researcher , you need resilience and you cannot be afraid of getting rejected . This would be my top tip , as it is so easy to feel discouraged and give up , but perseverance is needed .
Words RACHEL ROWLANDS , Occupational Therapy Lecturer , School of Healthcare Sciences , College of Biomedical and Life Sciences , Cardiff University , email AndrewsRA @ cardiff . ac . uk
April 2023 OTnews 37