Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- Revise and resubmit or walk away?
Revise and resubmit or walk away?
27 July 2010
By Matthew Salois
Being an academic would be so much easier if only the publication process ended with a finished paper. Trying to find the time to even write a paper as a post-doc is difficult and during some weeks it is impossible.
Since May 2009, I began working with my old PhD advisor on writing up a paper that was completely distinct from my primary research responsibilities as a post-doc. I thought this would be an easy and quick publication to add to my CV.
Of course, being the naïve academic I am, things turned out a bit differently. Not only did I end up entrenched in a topic a bit more complicated than I thought, but I also found myself taking over as lead author. Nonetheless, I was very pleased to have a finished paper in just over six months.
Then the peer review process began this past January. The first journal took a month to give the paper a “screen reject.” As explained in the rejection letter, a screen rejection occurs when the editor feels the paper is inadequate and asks one or two other referees to back up his opinion in a paragraph or two. Strike one.
Eager to press on I submitted the paper to another journal the next week. This journal took just five days to give the paper a “desk reject” stating the paper was not “of interest to the general readership” of the journal. Strike two.
Well, at least these decisions were fast! The whole process was a bit wounding and led me to believe I had just spent half a year writing an awful paper that was worthless and of no interest. But my old PhD advisor spirited me on to use the few comments I did get on the paper towards improving it and to submit again. He is of the opinion that “every paper has a home.”
By the end of February of this year, I re-submitted to a lesser ranked, though still respectful, journal and by June I had their reply:
“All three referees find the topic of the paper and the general approach interesting and I follow their unanimous recommendation to ask you to resubmit a revised version. However, there are some substantial concerns raised, especially by referee 2, which are likely to make a promising revision a major effort.”
The extreme excitement I felt over getting an acceptance letter was tempered by the “substantial concerns” and “major effort” bits. After reading the referee reports I became concerned that the revisions where quite substantial indeed. So, here I am a month later, and having had no time to get back to the paper, it stands idle. Part of me thinks the revise and resubmit process is not worth the time (at least in this case), but I am far too tempted to take advantage of this opportunity.
When do you decide to either revise and resubmit or just walk away?
Simon Smith28 July 2010 at 09:31 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I wouldn't be disheartened at the demand for a major re-write, as long as the 'substantial concerns' make some kind of sense to you. If you think that fulfilling them is impossible without destroying the whole thread of your paper, then that would be different, but hopefully you can use their comments constructively. Of course, your question raises the issue of the value of peer review, which we've discussed on this blog before. I wonder if more people will choose to 'walk away' as more options open up for by-passing standard journals and getting your (un-reviewed) paper into the public domain via the web? Or whether the allure of journal impact factors, the criteria for valuing academic outputs in the REF, plus the intrinsic value of peer review, will keep us loyal to the traditional publishing channels despite the frustrations and disappointments that we often have to go through?
Matthew Salois29 July 2010 at 12:24 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Thanks Simon for your comment. You're quite right in that I ought to use their comments constructively. For the most part they are, but I am not looking forward to the additional work that is going to be needed! I cannot recall who has written about the peer review process before so please chime in here about your thoughts and/or experiences. As for me, I am driven by the allure of journal impact factors, as petty as that may sound. I have also noticed that my profession ranks its associated journals with impact factors that do not always match up with the ISI factors. I am curious if other fields are like that as well.
Sarah Davies30 July 2010 at 11:02 AM
permalinkreport this comment
I think you should revise and resubmit - on the grounds that a provisional acceptance in the hand is worth a straight acceptance in the bush! It sounds like the reviewers' comments at least make sense to you (we've all had ones that don't), and you might be surprised about how quickly you can deal with them (unless they call for fresh data/analysis?). Maybe you should try and set aside a week to get it done, and force yourself to get it completed in that time? I've done that before and found it helpful.
Hannah Dee30 July 2010 at 01:40 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I'm currently fighting with a journal article resubmission which sounds very similar! Great reviews and comments, major paper reorganisation required but the outcome will be a much better paper at the end of it. My CV has "Accepted pending revision" against the paper title, and the deadline for the revised version is towards the end of next month. Unfortunately, my motivation is not high at the moment. It's very hard to get started on doing work that I used to be paid for now I'm unemployed! I should be sitting around on street corners terrorising grannies, not doing journal corrections. I'm having to break the job down into a detailed list of sub-tasks in order to just get started. Oh well. So I guess what I'm saying is DO IT, even though the job's a real pain. Papers are what we all need to get that elusive "proper job", and you've got this one accepted, so you might as well jump through the last remaining hoops.
Elizabeth Dodson30 July 2010 at 03:51 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I agree that despite the frustration, it has to be worth seeing this through. Every publication counts, and far better to look back on this one as a success than as one that never made it...
Matthew Salois31 July 2010 at 11:53 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Hi Sarah, thanks for the advice, which I think is right on target. Now if I could only convince my PI to give me a week to address the comments! Hi Hannah, like you I am hardly even motivated at the moment with so many other things going on, though I am especially sympathetic towards your situation right now and I hope that changes very soon. Hi Elizabeth, your point is well accepted. In the end I will revise and resubmit, I just need to find the time. Thankfully I have 120 more days to respond.
Andy Humphrey04 August 2010 at 10:07 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Matthew best of luck with this. I heartily sympathise. My work record for 2009 included a stack of nearly-written papers that we haven't been able to submit (because either the final experiments didn't work, or we're waiting on other individuals for biological testing results) and a half-complete grant proposal that I was advised not to submit because the university weren't going to support it... You raise an interesting point about impact factors. I was entirely unaware of this until there was a resolution about it at UCU Congress, but ISI is no longer an open academic service. It's funded by the publishing company Thomson Reuters, who have vested interests in certain journals (and therefore, presumably, not in others) and do not publish the criteria by which their impact factors are determined. Those who spoke to the motion at UCU Congress said that this particularly disadvantages academics in certain areas of the social sciences whose journals are poorly covered by the ISI service - which has had a knock-on effect on the metrics for previous RAEs. Presumably this is the reason why some disciplines have their own system of impact factors which do not match the ISI ones.