Friday, February 13, 2009

Does this hold ...

... for manuscript rejections as well?
But in a modern world, our hypersensitivity to rejection can have surprisingly destructive consequences. When we're socially or romantically excluded, even in seemingly insignificant ways, it can lead to a host of negative psychological and physical side effects. That includes everything from lower scores on intelligence tests to a weakened immune system and increased aggression ...
I know I want to strangle someone when I get a less than stellar review on one of my manuscripts.

2 comments:

Philip H. said...

Which means you probably won't like to hear that I often edit maniscripts for colleagues with a red pen on paper. SOme times, the old school way makes the best point.

Thomas Joseph said...

True. I was commenting more about what happens when you send it out for peer review to the journal and the reviewers crap on it. We have a policy here that each manuscript needs to be sent out to two reviewers (in house peer-review) prior to being sent out to the journal. The job of these two reviewers is to determine if the manuscript is actually worthy of publication (along with making edits on glaring problems). If you get the thumbs up from these two reviewers, you can go ahead and submit it for peer-review with the journal. If they poo-poo it, you better write something worthwhile and try again.

I had an instance where the in-house reviewers raised some good comments, I went back to the bench and added the information they thought was pertinent. Didn't think twice about doing that actually, even though I thought the manuscript was good as it was.

I'm definitely not at the point where I feel I can shrug off edits/recommendations/advice, and in most instances I actually desire that feedback ... as long as it's constructive. My last run in with a particular journal did not produce any constructive criticism whatsoever, and I'm still chapped about it. I still wonder if those yahoo's even read what I sent them. Imagine, sending applied science to a journal with that very word in the title, only to be told that it was too applied and didn't involve enough classical methods.