I really should be working on my tenure case right now, but ... it's numbed my mind past the point of functioning at this point. So, since I said I would, here is my manuscript update and some thoughts on the process. So, I'm batting .500 (1 for 2) in my current spate of first author manuscript submissions.
1. Manuscript One: Sent it off to Applied and Environmental Microbiology only to get reviews telling me it was "too applied". Was told that it "... read like an engineer wrote it".
Too applied? Written like an engineer? WTF? Well listen folks, when I write about an
applied microbiological process, what do you expect? The system is actually used in an engineered management setting. It was a novel/interesting study because under similar situations experienced by other systems under these conditions (and we checked several), ours performed between 200% and 800% more efficiently. There was not a single previously published study which outperformed our system. That didn't seem to make much of a difference. Oh well. But, hey ... aside from a 100+ day wait through the peer process when we directed it towards another journal it wound up being accepted by said journal which has a higher impact factor than AEM. Win for me.
Take home message: Just because a particular set of reviewers doesn't like your paper doesn't mean your paper isn't worthy of publication. When you get back a review, sit down, check over those reviews and if they're a load of bullturd, make the revisions you
do need, reformat it, and send it back out. Try to get that process done within a couple of weeks. There is no use, if you do not plan on making major revisions, to let it sit on your desk for much longer. All it will do is delay the time it takes to get it accepted elsewhere. If you get a similar review the next time, then you should reconsider your science, but if your science is sound, don't give up on the paper.
2. Manuscript Two: Sent it to my new favorite journal (Soil Science Society of America Journal). It received a quick turn-around, and I was able to watch the entire process online. Not only that, but the journal strives to make the peer review process double-blind. Within reason, all identifying information is stripped from the manuscript. Obviously, if you cite yourself a lot, figuring out who sent in the manuscript is not a problem, but overt naming of the manuscript submitter is taken out of the paper. I like this style of review. Unfortunately, the paper was not accepted (was told when I resubmit, I should submit it as a new manuscript since it would really amount to a new work). However, the three reviewers sent back to me the most detailed and helpful review I've ever received. In total, they spent about eight pages combined detailing my experimental methods and the interpretations of my data and told me what they agreed with, and what they disagreed with. When they disagreed, they spent considerable time telling me why. In essence, they left me with a blueprint of what they would accept for publication. The things they disagreed with really didn't come as too much of a surprise for me, and the bonus is that the things they did suggest, we've already done (and figured we'd use in another publication). So, now all I need to do is switch around the data in the two manuscripts and send it back off.
I'm not sure if they figured I was new to this field and wanted to walk me through their world, or if this is standard for the journal. I figure I'll find that out with my next submission. However I was stunned by the level of detail put into a review for what amounted to a rejected manuscript.
Take home message: Appreciate criticisms of your manuscript. While this may seem to contradict the first take home message, I think we can all tell the difference between a simply negative review and valid criticism. If the reviewer spends no time detailing why they disagree with your premise, but simply tells you to take it elsewhere, the peer review system has failed. That's not a review. It's passing the buck. So when you do get thorough reviews, appreciate them, take them to heart, let them allow you to grow as a scientific investigator.
Before these two manuscripts, I had never had a manuscript rejected before. Perhaps I was just lucky, but it was bound to happen eventually. Fortunately I learned valuable lessons with these two manuscripts. I do not delude myself into thinking that my pooh doesn't stink. In case #2 I definitely can see the areas where I stretched, and the reviewers didn't buy it. They figured the data I was presenting would be good for
different analyses, just not the one I was trying to answer with that particular manuscript. I can buy that, and I'll do (have done) the work and get them back out as quickly as I can. The point for me is that I use this as a moment of growth. I could have gotten pissy and sent out #2 to a lower-tier journal and probably have gotten it in, but I saw this situation as different than situation #1. It also reinforces that I need to be thorough, helpful, and honest when doing my own peer-reviews. That is how the system succeeds and works as intended.
... you can sleep easier tonight. Knuckle cracking does not lead to arthritis. So why would I bother to blog about this today? For one simple reason. After a 50 year, single participant study, results have demonstrated that habitual knuckle cracking does not lead to arthritis. This research has advanced the field so much that it was given a 2009 Ig Nobel award. The original research (see citation below) was published in 1998. A link directly to the Letter to the Editor of the journal Arthritis and Rheumatism can be found here (PDF, 2 pages).
Posts
