Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- Is the juice worth the squeeze?
Is the juice worth the squeeze?
04 December 2009
By Matthew Salois
The old country song "The Gambler" by Kenny Rogers came to mind on the twilight of a recent journal rejection - the second rejection for this paper. The song's refrain was on an internal repeat:
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.
Know when to walk away, know when to run
You never count your money, when you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin', when the dealin's done.
The paper, a portion of my dissertation, has now sat in review for just over a year. The first journal took 4 months to reject, then I spent 3 months of trying to re-write the paper, and then finally it sat for another 6 months before being rejected at the second journal.
Aside from the usual feelings of embarrassment and disgrace that come along with a journal rejection, I am starting to wonder if the paper has a "home.” My dissertation advisor was fond of saying that every paper has a home, you just have to be patient to find its right place. However, having re-written this paper three times (once as a dissertation and twice as revised papers), I am wondering if the "juice is worth the squeeze,” as some may say.
And, so enters the wisdom of Kenny Rogers. The meaning of the song isn't really all that subtle, especially if you are at all familiar with the game of poker. The song is told from the point of view of the mysterious gambler who knows that success in life isn't based on the cards you have been dealt, but rather on how you play the cards in front of you. According to the gambler, every hand has the potential for a win or a loss, it all depends on how the cards are played. So, the key is to know when to stand firm (that is, when to "hold 'em") and when to take a step back (that is, when to "fold 'em).
I am caught up in this dilemma. Do I stand firm and work at yet another re-write of the paper or do I take a step back and lay this paper to rest?
Deborah Conte04 December 2009 at 07:10 PM
permalinkreport this comment
A difficult position indeed! I confess I do not have a huge amount of experience in this myself yet, but my feeling is that if we're at the early stages of our careers, then all papers are precious. I'm sure this is not news to you and I don't mean to patronise! I'm assuming you'll have done what most would do and aimed for the best journal you thought you could manage. So now comes the stepping down the list part? I guess my point is that unless you're feeling like downgrading to a journal that you'd barely even bother to read articles in yourself, then another cliche applies: if at first you don't succeed, try, try again... (If it's any consolation, I too am writing up stuff from PhD thesis for a journal that I could have a shot at getting into, but probably as much of a shot of getting rejected from. In fact this may be optimistic! So I will quite likely soon be in as muc of a predicament! Merry Christmas!) Good luck with it :)
Hannah Dee05 December 2009 at 09:15 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Were the reviews "Ah, fair cop mate, you got me bang to rights, I should have done more experiments in Chapter 3" or were they "I was robbed" reviews? I've had several papers back in which reviewer 1 said something along the lines of "You didn't cite paper X "... [which was probably the reviewer's own work] ..."and anyway your whole underlying methodology is wrong". without justifying the second half of the statement. I'm firmly of the opinion that missing citations is sloppy, but completely understandable, particularly in interdisciplinary work. But sometimes reviewers seem to have an axe to grind, and sometimes they're not very nice about it. I do a fair bit of reviewing myself and I try very hard to explain, for those papers which I reject, what exactly the issues are, in a (hopefully) non-judgemental manner. So if they should have tried method X, I don't say "You have missed out one of the seminal papers in this field", but something like "Paper X makes some important contributions and a comparison with the methods from Paper X would greatly improve Sections A and B..." So returning to your original question, whether to downsize your journal expectations is a function of exactly how bad the reviews were, and whether you thought they were fair. If the reviews weren't extensive enough for you to be able to tell, or if one of the problems was that your work wasn't a good fit for that journal, I'd discuss with a supervisor or a mentor in your field - it might be appropriate to contact the journal editor and ask for advice. On a lighter note - someone has re-mixed the Hitler Downfall scene, updating the subtitles to cover peer review. Warning: do not follow this link if you are easily offended by subtitles containing swear words, I expect there might also be some German swearing in the audio track, but I do no know for sure. However, if you have recently had a paper rejected, it may make you feel a little better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY
Tennie Videler06 December 2009 at 03:08 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Hi Matthew, I guess the answer to the question you pose depends on whether you are persuing a career in academia- if you are, or if you want to keep that as an option, I'd guess that you just have to bite the bullet and submit it again. Publications are almost the only currency.... I have heard of institutions where they employ people to rewrite articles or help you do it (so as to free up researchers' time to get on with research, I guess)- it may be worth an explore where you are now or where you did your doctorate? The other thing is to possibly not take no for an answer. I have seen it in action that (high impact) journals have rejected a paper and when challenged have published it, sometimes without huge corrections. It depends on what the comments of the peer reviewers said, following on from Hannah's reply (found the how not to deal with paper rejection clip hugely entertaining...) . This approach works best when made by a 'big name in the field'....
Matthew Salois08 December 2009 at 04:28 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Thanks, Hannah, for the wildly entertaining YouTube clip! Sadly, the comments made by the reviewers were not even that helpful. Though I am taking your advice and having my mentor look through it. Good thoughts, Deborah. I think in the end I will submit to a lesser ranked journal as I have been working me way down the impact factors! And you are absolutely right, Tennie. Publications seem to be the only true currency! Too bad I have little cash on hand right now!
Maarten Blaauw09 December 2009 at 04:26 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Hi, I would re-write the ms ... again ... and again ... and again, until justice is done. A similar thing happened to me and it was very de-motivating, especially because I knew the data and messages in the paper were right. When re-submitting you can ask the editor to avoid certain referees that might have a negative/biased opinion of your work. That's what I did the last time I submitted that hard paper, and finally it got accepted without trouble!
Sarah Davies09 December 2009 at 09:06 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I think maybe everyone has one of these papers that gets bounced around from journal to journal, which doesn't seem to quite fit in anywhere but which is still good stuff - I know I have. I find the worst thing having to find the time, energy and motivation to keep re-writing. Sometimes I think it helps to take a break from a particular article for a few months - coming back to it can bring a new sense of perspective and can even make it feel fresh again...
Mike Chopra-Gant17 December 2009 at 12:37 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Matthew, Have you contacted the editor of the journal? If the reviewers' comments were little help, I would suggest you do so. They have huge experience and s/he should be able (and willing) to offer advice on what needs to be done in order to make the paper publishable. Also, if it is the case that it just isn't a good fit for the particular journal, the editor will be able to tell you and may be able to offer advice about which journals might be a better fit. There is some merit in Sarah's suggestion to take a break from the article and come back with a fresh perspective but, personally, I think there is a danger of losing momentum if you leave it too long. The other tactic you might try (works well in humanities; not so sure about sciences) is to rework the paper through a series of conference presentations (not too many, it gets boring). You get immediate and usually more supportive feedback (people have to be more pleasant when they are face to face with you), a wider range of perspectives and the benefit of a "hard" deadline to rework the paper before the next conference. Most of all, don't give up. Best of luck, Mike
Matthew Salois21 December 2009 at 05:31 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Maarten, I could definitely use some of your persistence! I wish I know which referees had a negative bias. I have suspicions, but that is all. Sarah, I am waiting until the new year before I get back to this. Part of this I hope gives me the perspective you mention. Though really, I am really only putting this off because of time. I have so many other new projects I would like to continue working on, it is hard to get motivated to return to something old. Mike, you're right, I am loosing momentum! Though like I said, I aim to pick it up next month. I decided not to contact the editor on this one. However, I do like your conference idea, which is something I never considered. Thanks for the encouragement!