Are they saying it's logically and causally necessary to not accept your paper?Hype wrote:........... I'm currently working up the nerve to submit a paper for a fourth time...perkana wrote:
It's gone through substantial revision and I think it's got a solid shot... but it's nerve-wracking...
This is the third journal I sent it too. And the last reviewer was the fourth (think the editor was the third). One of the original reviewers had to be changed so I had to wait another three months. Just need to do some really minor corrections, but not my method. So yeah, I'm relieved after a rather stressful year. You'll do fine!Hype wrote:Grats! That must be a hell of a feeling. I'm currently working up the nerve to submit a paper for a fourth time...perkana wrote:
Wonderful news Perkana! How exciting. GO YOU!perkana wrote:
I think it's a little bit different in the humanities than in the sciences, though I'm not totally confident about that. (How can research findings be rejected by peer review a few times and then accepted? Other than issues of writing/presentation. It's not like you redo the entire study before submitting again...)mockbee wrote:¡que asombroso perkana!
I hope I said "How fantastic!" and not "What a hat!"
Are they saying it's logically and causally necessary to not accept your paper?Hype wrote:........... I'm currently working up the nerve to submit a paper for a fourth time...perkana wrote:
On a serious note, do you sense it's more they mostly disagree with you, or they are positive about it but think there is a stronger argument?
Sounds like any new professional endeavor.... prior cachet and extended social network is often required, and a substantial amount of luck is mandatory.Hype wrote:
To answer your question more directly, and in my case, all the reviewer comments I've ever received have been pretty positive (though there is some editor discretion for not sending comments that are overly harsh or stupid, or whatever). This might even make it more difficult to figure out how to modify a paper before submitting it elsewhere, since positive comments don't really help suggest places to improve the paper.
I've heard stories of it taking upwards of seven submissions before some famous papers were accepted, though... so I guess you just learn to get over it. But at the early stage of a career (that may or may not even be a career in the end), every submission feels do-or-die.
True. But the article review process in particular is supposed to be 'blind', and the main way for academic disciplines to make claims about objective evaluation, objectivity, real knowledge, and progress... If that system becomes too corrupted (a certain amount of corruption is tolerable, as in a democracy)... we're in real trouble.mockbee wrote:Sounds like any new professional endeavor.... prior cachet and extended social network is often required, and a substantial amount of luck is mandatory.Hype wrote:
To answer your question more directly, and in my case, all the reviewer comments I've ever received have been pretty positive (though there is some editor discretion for not sending comments that are overly harsh or stupid, or whatever). This might even make it more difficult to figure out how to modify a paper before submitting it elsewhere, since positive comments don't really help suggest places to improve the paper.
I've heard stories of it taking upwards of seven submissions before some famous papers were accepted, though... so I guess you just learn to get over it. But at the early stage of a career (that may or may not even be a career in the end), every submission feels do-or-die.
I found this article useful and comforting while I was waiting for my reviews (it's in Spanish but you can google translate the page): http://conacytprensa.mx/index.php/socie ... ientificasHype wrote:I think it's a little bit different in the humanities than in the sciences, though I'm not totally confident about that. (How can research findings be rejected by peer review a few times and then accepted? Other than issues of writing/presentation. It's not like you redo the entire study before submitting again...)mockbee wrote:¡que asombroso perkana!
I hope I said "How fantastic!" and not "What a hat!"
Are they saying it's logically and causally necessary to not accept your paper?Hype wrote:........... I'm currently working up the nerve to submit a paper for a fourth time...perkana wrote:
On a serious note, do you sense it's more they mostly disagree with you, or they are positive about it but think there is a stronger argument?
In the humanities, a lot of it comes down to picking the right journal at the right time for the kind of work you're doing. Some journals aim at a "generalist" academic audience rather than specialists in your narrow area, so a paper that develops highly specialized technical nitpicking will tend not to be looked upon favourably for acceptance in a generalist journal even if there's nothing actually wrong with what you've done. Sometimes it comes down to reviewers deciding that the work just isn't at a level that they want papers to be at for that journal. This is where the peer review process can break down, because it's supposed to be blind, but it's often very easy to tell who is an established name just from their writing style and topics that they're writing on. A lot of times, there are only a few possible people who could review a paper, and they all know each other, and may even have heard the paper at a conference already. The assumption is that conflicts of interest will be self-policed, but there's no guarantee that this happens. Sometimes it could even be as simple as googling a concept and accidentally turning up an earlier version of the paper (or a presentation based on it), thus breaking anonymity.
To answer your question more directly, and in my case, all the reviewer comments I've ever received have been pretty positive (though there is some editor discretion for not sending comments that are overly harsh or stupid, or whatever). This might even make it more difficult to figure out how to modify a paper before submitting it elsewhere, since positive comments don't really help suggest places to improve the paper.
I've heard stories of it taking upwards of seven submissions before some famous papers were accepted, though... so I guess you just learn to get over it. But at the early stage of a career (that may or may not even be a career in the end), every submission feels do-or-die.
Thanks, Squee!Squee wrote:Wonderful news Perkana! How exciting. GO YOU!perkana wrote:
A friend of mine had a Roomba years ago and I wasn't that impressed, although I imagine they've come a long way since then. I bought a Dyson Fluffy the other day. I don't want to get too anal about a vaicuum cleaner but this is incredible. Previously I have always bought shit cheap ones. Now I realise why these are so expensive. The only downside is that it only lasts 20 minutes (which I'm not too bothered about as the house is small) and there is no indication as when it is about to cut. However, it's incredibly powerful, has a load of attachments, it's cordeless and very well designed. Plus I can use it for the car.Hype wrote:The price on Roomba 870s finally came down enough that I could afford to replace my old retrofitted 530 (3 years old, and the battery is basically toast -- replaceable, but the newer models are much better). I'm living in the future with a robot vacuum that runs on a schedule and returns to its dock on its own. More time for writing.
Thanks! I'll check those out when I get a chance. (The next two weeks are marking/revising weeks...perkana wrote:I found this article useful and comforting while I was waiting for my reviews (it's in Spanish but you can google translate the page): http://conacytprensa.mx/index.php/socie ... ientificas
My dad sent me a paper about peer review fraud. It's interesting and kinda stupid at the same time, but some people do it because of being pressured to publish in high impact journals, even editors are involved. I'll leave you the link to the article: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330
Or if you want I can e-mail you the doc.
)What's amazing is that all of that is just your lunch.creep wrote:we just got amazon prime now in my area. i just ordered my halloween candy, a burrito, some ice cream and some baby wipes. it should be here within an hour. this will make me even more lazy.
In a hearse?perkana wrote:The Rolling Stones are coming next year (March 14 & 17) to Mexico City
At least it was a damn good game goaltending was on point for both teams ..quite the displayesqfool wrote:Free all inclusive tix to the Blues game tonight, only to see em get their balls stomped by the Kings, but everyone expected that. Oh well, free buffet and beer, good times. Fucking hanging out with coworkers and Big 4 Accounting firms, my how my life has changed from a decade ago.
That's not funny!Bandit72 wrote:In a hearse?perkana wrote:The Rolling Stones are coming next year (March 14 & 17) to Mexico City
interesting, I just thought about vanilla coke a few days ago. Not because I've ever had one, you can't buy them here, but because I know em from Pulp fiction, Uma Thurman has one. I'm entering Secret santa next year, on my wish list will be a case of these cause they sound deliciousperkana wrote:Small things make my day nowadays. I'm glad vanilla Coke is back. It tastes so good.
