[tomtom]

Grr.. just had the numbing email notification that a Nature submission I lead authored has been rejected.
One good review, but the other reviewer was "the worst person it could have gone to". They spent 4000 words bitterly tearing us apart (we only had 2000 for the fecking article itself). My publising nemesis has struck again and prevented a possible career high.

Tits^10.

[andy popp]

Bugger! But only 2000 words. Are all Nature articles that long? And 4000 words, that is some review. Nothing constructive at all?

I've collected some classic reviews the last few months, e.g. "pseudo-intellectual bullshit". Another recommended we "employ a copy editor as English clearly isn't your first language" (knowing full well it is), and more. Even better, all of these went on to be accepted.

[tomtom]

Bugger! But only 2000 words. Are all Nature articles that long? And 4000 words, that is some review. Nothing constructive at all?

I've collected some classic reviews the last few months, e.g. "pseudo-intellectual bullshit". Another recommended we "employ a copy editor as English clearly isn't your first language" (knowing full well it is), and more. Even better, all of these went on to be accepted.

Yup - only 4 pages (text figures refs etc...), We're going to appeal to the editors - but I'd give that a 10% chance. In many ways you should have to convince your worst critic, but it seems like in this case we dont get the chance.. The review had an intro, then went through each section and its own conclusions! You get used to the knock backs in academia.. but they still hurt.

A stiff gin. A rare steak then off to the pub to moan

[Nibile]

gin + steak + pub = fu*k off fu**ing reviewer.

[andy popp]

Several stiff gins.

[danm]

Do you not get to review his review?

If only academia was like a Tarantino movie:

"Please allow me to retort...." said Samuel L. Jackson stylee whilst cocking a handgun in his face.

[andy popp]

Do you not get to review his review?

If only! I've never even heard of appealing to the editor as TT suggested he might.

[Paul B]

 That sucks.

What confuses me is that every academic has experienced this yet I often hear others relishing relaying stories where they've rejected this and that (I'm not suggesting this is you TomTom).

[Stu Littlefair]

TomTom - you're perfectly within your rights to request a second opinion on the article, although to be honest, if it's nature, the replacement referee will have to fucking love it for it to get through, as they normally reject articles if the referee is even lukewarm about it.

Don't give up yet.

[fatdoc]

That sounds well shit... If rejected from the alleged learned medical press these days 2nd and 3rd reviews for important / unique work are common.

On a related note I've been asked to author a chapter in the new Oxford handbook for surgeons... Slightly scared, honoured and I'm putting aside 100 hrs for 2000 words, on a subject I'm well placed to write on... U academics out there... Reasonable time consideration?

[tomtom]

Thanks folks...

Several stiff gins.

A few pints of Wold Gold did the trick..

What confuses me is that every academic has experienced this yet I often hear others relishing relaying stories where they've rejected this and that (I'm not suggesting this is you TomTom).

Yup - sadly do unto others what they do to you tends to pervade.. supervisees tend to pick up the academic habits of supervisors and so it continues..

Usually its all anonymous too! Though this referee named themselves - which fair play they're fronting up to stand by what they say..

TomTom - you're perfectly within your rights to request a second opinion on the article, although to be honest, if it's nature, the replacement referee will have to fucking love it for it to get through, as they normally reject articles if the referee is even lukewarm about it.

Don't give up yet.

Thanks Stu - we'll see what happens. I went for the softly softly - this is how science operates - approach. And also pointed out that one neutral referee and one with heavily vested interests didnt make a good balance! You never know - and I wouldnt know if I didnt try, but I dont hold up much hope. Its Nature FFS, what has happend to me is the academic equivalent of chatting up a supermodel, she gives youher room number.. you wander up and nearly make it to knocking on the door

On a related note I've been asked to author a chapter in the new Oxford handbook for surgeons... Slightly scared, honoured and I'm putting aside 100 hrs for 2000 words, on a subject I'm well placed to write on... U academics out there... Reasonable time consideration?

Sounds a little generous - I'd say 500 a day for me, but if you're out of practice then you'd need more time.. horses for courses, different disciplines/experience etc..

[andy popp]

I rejected something last week but didn't really enjoy it, they submitted to the wrong journal to be honest (and there were flaws) but tried to be constructive. Wrote one truly terrible savage book review once, which is worse as it would go public, but the book was incredibly bad. Luckily I've never come across the author since. Again, not something I enjoyed.

Fatdoc, that sounds very generous - if I'm ready to sit down and write (have all my notes and materials etc.) then I often manage 1500 or more in day - but I have been writing a lot recently. As Tom says it might be discipline dependent - tho I didn't think science types did any actual writing, just a few numbers and figures etc.

A minor academic NNFN, I have to go to Sheffield today .... but only to spend the day externalling.

[andy popp]

And congrats on the commission.

[SA Chris]

Those who can do, those who can't become critics.

[tomtom]

Thank you for all the postive comments yesterday... we have a partial outcome! We sent a gently pleading email to the editor that got a result (edited/name changed email correspondence below..) Starting bottom to top.... I suspect we'll get stiffed again, but pleased to have the chance to fight back. Fuck Yeah!


From: B
Sent:
To: TomTom

Hi TomTom,
  It would be considered a revised version.
With regards,

B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: TomTom
Sent: 21 June 2012 09:46
To: B
Subject: RE: Decision on Nature XXXXX

Hello B, thanks for getting back so swiftly..
I’ll put it to the other authors (it was very much a team effort) and take it from there. Just to clarify – would this be a resubmission, or resubmission treated effectively as a new paper would?
Thanks,
TomTom
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: B
Sent: 21 June 2012 09:26
To: TomTom

Dear TomTom,

  Thank you for your e-mail.  I must admit that I am not convinced that a straightforward revision along the lines you discuss would be suitable for Nature.  As you are probably aware, in addition to being technically correct, for manuscripts to be appropriate, they must also robust conceptual advance in scientific understanding, which in this case would be firmly demonstrating both the existence of the X your model predicts as well as their importance for Y.  In light of comments from both reviewers, it is not clear that a straightforward revision would allow you to do this. 

  However, if, after considerable future work, you are able to meet the above threshold, I would be happy to consider a resubmission.

With regards,
B

[duncan]

Tom - congratulations on getting anywhere near Nature.  Do the editors nominate reviewers, if so, is it possible to request that certain individuals or groups are not used?  Some journals encourage this, acknowledging that academic rivalry can bias the reviewing process.  Even if they don't, it may be possible to request this informally.  Possibly a hight-risk strategy but worth discussing with your other authors.

[slackline]

A ray of light, might just sneak into the forthcoming REF too.  Good luck with it.

[andy popp]

R&R, not a bad result Tomtom, was obviously worth trying.

[tomtom]

R&R, not a bad result Tomtom, was obviously worth trying.

Thanks - yes it was! The best thing is, intead of that oh bugger - put the paper to the bottom of the pile and forget about it for 6 months routine - is that now me and the other authors are really fired up to do something!

[nik at work]

Probable car death, I hate fucking cars.

[SA Chris]

Good luck nik, hope it's just something minor. I hate them too.

[andy_e]

Stallioni told me you love fucking cars.

[slackline]

Stallioni told me you love fucking cars.

Doesn't look like Nick...

My car is my lover 2/5

[Grubes]

You should of kept the van

[nik at work]

Tell me about it. It may have looked like moss on wheels but it was the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned (although to be fair that isn't saying much).