Read on Twitter
Wow, I'm touched by the response here, especially from students embarking on their own peer-review journeys!
A few thoughts on my own over the years: https://twitter.com/tmbejan/status/1356291403937181699
A few thoughts on my own over the years: https://twitter.com/tmbejan/status/1356291403937181699
Rejection is a part of the process. When you receive one (which you will), make sure to give yourself space and time to grieve. It hurts!
Grieve...but then get on with it. Take what you can from the comments, and make the paper better. It can always be better.
Grieve...but then get on with it. Take what you can from the comments, and make the paper better. It can always be better.
Remember: IT IS NOT PERSONAL. Even if a reviewer assumes a tone of gob-smacking condescension and questions your cognitive abilities*, IT IS NOT PERSONAL.
(* This has happened to me TWICE in anonymous review over the last year. Knock it off, guys.)
(* This has happened to me TWICE in anonymous review over the last year. Knock it off, guys.)
But I also received generous and highly constructive feedback along the way. The paper and my ideas are much, much better for it, and I'm grateful to ALL of the editors and reviewers!
My own philosophy of peer-review is that if a paper is serious and scholarly, even if deeply flawed, it's an automatic R&R.
Given the time scales involved, I believe authors should *always* be given the chance to revise before rejection.
This is...not everyone's policy.
Given the time scales involved, I believe authors should *always* be given the chance to revise before rejection.
This is...not everyone's policy.
What I have no patience for, however, is the policing of sub- and intra-disciplinary boundaries by reviewers.
As someone whose work is interdisciplinary, I get this a lot.
In my judgement, THAT is the Editor's job. Our job is to assess the work on its own terms.
As someone whose work is interdisciplinary, I get this a lot.
In my judgement, THAT is the Editor's job. Our job is to assess the work on its own terms.
Maybe when I finish this project, I'll go into some of the nonsense I received from reviewers along the way. In hindsight, it's amusing. At the time, not so much.
But even the nonsense forced me to make my arguments stronger. One might even say: fool-proof.
But even the nonsense forced me to make my arguments stronger. One might even say: fool-proof.
