tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post29908679560085894..comments2024-03-14T04:53:49.513-05:00Comments on FemaleScienceProfessor: Everyone Knows That AlreadyFemale Science Professorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15288567883197987690noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-87475524306492965792009-03-19T09:49:00.000-05:002009-03-19T09:49:00.000-05:00Nice letter! You may get back a generic "unfortuna...Nice letter! You may get back a generic "unfortunately we cannot publish every paper and must turn down many of high quality etc." response, but at least you have called to the editor's attention the issue of this type of insidious unsubstantiated review comment.Female Science Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15288567883197987690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-13758061037425876262009-03-19T09:45:00.000-05:002009-03-19T09:45:00.000-05:00Ok, I wrote back to the editor. I was inspired. Em...Ok, I wrote back to the editor. I was inspired. Email pasted below edited for pseudonymity.<BR/><BR/><I>Dear Prof. Editor,<BR/><BR/>I apologize for not writing sooner, but I was considering whether to respond to this rejection. I have decided that, while I am not resubmitting this paper for your consideration as it was accepted within two weeks at another publication (without revision), I should voice one concern about my review. Both of the reviews suggested that my work was not original, and I think it is important to note that neither review cited a single article to support this claim. The reality is that papers of this kind that examine [stuff] are incredibly rare -- there have been less than ten that I have found in the last twenty five years. Absent from the literature is a single comparative paper on [stuff]. So I wonder what "not original" is really shorthand for.<BR/><BR/>I respect your decision, but I do think it is important that in the review process submissions not be waved off because the results are preliminary, particularly if the evidence is of a kind that is [stuff]. I am guessing that this is the reason for the rejection based on the rest of the reviews, but again, as the focus seemed to be on this uncited lack of originality (and importance, which is also difficult to quantify in any productive, constructive way for the manuscript author), I am not sure.<BR/><BR/>I enjoy your journal and do hope I get the chance to submit another manuscript for publication in the future. I have been a reviewer for your journal for a few years.<BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/>Prof. Kate</I>Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16995641658376827290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-16521881387067272502009-03-18T21:25:00.000-05:002009-03-18T21:25:00.000-05:00Margaret L. has a great response for the problem o...Margaret L. has a great response for the problem of potential lack of novelty - clear and constructive. As reviewers, we should always support major criticisms with explicit facts and citations. I have great respect for many editors I've interacted with, but do agree in general that they ought to sack up and ask jackass reviewers to support comments like "we already know this" with citations. Similarly, reviewers should be expected to provide a rationale for additional experiments proposed other than "the authors should do this". EMBO J is adopting an interesting new policy for publishing the (anonymous) reviews online for any paper they accept - way to go, EMBO! I'm thinking people will be more careful about what they write when everyone eventually gets to see their review, even if "anonymous".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-27067009268098472132009-03-18T20:31:00.000-05:002009-03-18T20:31:00.000-05:00Bill,That's a rough position to be in, and so I wi...Bill,<BR/><BR/>That's a rough position to be in, and so I wish you the best of luck to you in your future career endeavors, whatever they may be.<BR/><BR/>I should point out that there may be many good arguments why scientists who are currently practicing and engaged researchers may make better editors. I suspect physioprof has the intellectual ability to make them, we will have to wait and see I guess.<BR/><BR/>To briefly take the thread in a different direction, how do you tell if somone is a "working scientist"?<BR/><BR/>Two quick examples from a field that is not my own, but that I read a lot in as a hobby:<BR/>1. <A HREF="http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm" REL="nofollow">Gert Korthof</A> says he "worked [...] on software development for test procedures of commercial pharmaceuticals" and is "now retired and studying evolution literature fulltime." But his web site is an amazing comprehensive resource for anyone interested in the current big-picture state of evolutionary science.<BR/>2. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_W%C3%A4chtersh%C3%A4user" REL="nofollow">Günter_Wächtershäuser</A>. This guy is a *patent lawyer* who has published more than a few papers on the origin of life. Sure, now that he is indispusputably successful he has a few adjunct and honorary professorships. But back in 1991 was he a "working scientist" or a patent lawyer?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-40270948420232702522009-03-18T18:06:00.000-05:002009-03-18T18:06:00.000-05:00Wow, really interesting discussion, especially sin...Wow, really interesting discussion, especially since the main criticism I've gotten is that my work is "too novel".<BR/><BR/>In fact, I actually had a senior PI tell me the other day that my work is "just too far ahead of the curve". <BR/><BR/>What do you do with that kind of feedback? Nod and smile?<BR/><BR/>In my field we don't see a lot of "we already knew that" papers, because there is so much we don't know. In fact, it makes me sad to think that either <BR/><BR/>a) nobody knows the literature or pays attention to the difference between <BR/><BR/>"model accepted as if proven" <BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/>"actual result demonstrated by X experiment in Y paper by Z authors." <BR/><BR/>or <BR/><BR/>b) too many people who aren't questioning assumptions at all, and are only doing incremental work?<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I've noticed that some otherwise talented people are bad at distinguishing- let alone emphasizing- what is novel about their work. They're afraid to lay it out as simply as:<BR/><BR/>"Joe Blow did X.1 in 19xx and got Y. <BR/><BR/>We did X.2 in 2009 and got Z."<BR/><BR/>It's the whole lack of scientific discourse thing, I think. Sometimes an incremental adjustment in approach leads to a HUGE breakthrough in results. But everyone has gotten clobbered too many times, now no one wants to stick their neck out? <BR/><BR/>And I tend to agree with CPP on this one- I've run into a few too many former scientists as editors. <BR/><BR/>They are SO out of touch with the internal politics of a field, it's hard to imagine how they could possibly choose reviewers who don't have a conflict of interest, or to arbitrate arguments that require a deep knowledge of the literature (and in some cases, the unpublished results) of a field...<BR/><BR/>I've gotten reviews that were #$%^!?, but the editor was oblivious to the hallmarks of Conflict of Interest. Is it because they don't understand the nuances of the field well enough? What can we do but go to other journals?Ms.PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06542602867472447035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-82027582886305310122009-03-18T16:43:00.000-05:002009-03-18T16:43:00.000-05:00i know a professor at my school that sits around a...i know a professor at my school that sits around and likes to say everything is a solved problem (except what he and his students do). if he can possibly conceive the problem in his mind (it must be a glorious place) then it is solved.<BR/><BR/>he is however a jackass without much funding and who will not have any more grad students in the foreseeable future (i've been badmouthing him left and right, for this and many other reasons).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-91768332287462067162009-03-18T16:23:00.000-05:002009-03-18T16:23:00.000-05:00What CurtF said. PhysioProf, you really should ge...What CurtF said. PhysioProf, you really should get some help with that PI-centric superiority complex of yours. That kind of bullshit is one of the major reasons why academia is such a shitty place to work. That someone isn't a "working scientist", whatever the fuck that even means, doesn't make them a failed anydamnthing.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I just lost my job because the grant ran out and I didn't have enough data for a decent resubmission. So I guess I'm not an actual working scientist, and I'm considering (among other options) becoming an editor, in large part because research is full of type-A jackasses who think that anyone who doesn't want to be exactly like them is a waste of protoplasm. <BR/><BR/>Does that make me some kind of loser in your eyes? If so, fuck you very much.Bill Hookerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00366270586730870964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-9290947613385893492009-03-18T15:28:00.000-05:002009-03-18T15:28:00.000-05:00Andrew, and other commenters point out that judgin...Andrew, and other commenters point out that judging originality is an important part of a reviewer's job. Also, it is not a simple and straightforward business either. For example, different fields have very different levels of tolerance for similarity of work, i.e. some fields are more specialized than others. There are lots of other complicating factors here.<BR/><BR/>But, it isn't hard to tell the BS "originality" critique from the real one. For one thing, a real originality concern is backed up by references, discussion or other indications that the referee has reflected on the issue. Often, the referee demurs and points to the quality of the work as a deciding factor. But the BS critique almost always comes in as a brief, sweeping statement. This one sentence critique is offered up as reason enough to reject a piece of work. The reviewer is essentially saying, "take my word for it." And in a number of cases, this crap actually works. The editor does take their word for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-15286887682992331802009-03-18T15:05:00.000-05:002009-03-18T15:05:00.000-05:00Posts like this are the reason that your blog is a...Posts like this are the reason that your blog is awesome. Just saying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-76651198516553216262009-03-18T14:42:00.000-05:002009-03-18T14:42:00.000-05:00physioprof said: The business model where journal ...physioprof said: <I>The business model where journal editors--the gatekeepers of the scientific literature--are failed scientists has to end.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you have any evidence at all that this "business model" exists anywhere but in your own mind? I have seen more than a few jobs ads for editorial positions at NPG journals over the years. Not once have I seen the phrase "failed scientist" anywhere in the list of qualifications.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you think they are failed scientists. But maybe they think you are a failed editor. <BR/><BR/>Your comment seems to perpetuate the much maligned, non-sustainable exponential-growth model of producing-Ph.D.s-only-so-they-can-become-PIs too often carried by the academe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-37192050345524384642009-03-18T14:38:00.000-05:002009-03-18T14:38:00.000-05:00I totally agree with PP's comment about failed sci...I totally agree with PP's comment about failed scientists acting as editors in some journals! If the "gatekeepers" are not working scientists, how can they judge the worth of a paper (i.e. whether to send it to reviewers or not)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-66148947016901712202009-03-18T14:35:00.000-05:002009-03-18T14:35:00.000-05:00When I'm the reviewer I try to phrase it as: "The ...When I'm the reviewer I try to phrase it as: "The authors have not made it clear how their finding is an advance beyond the findings of X, Y, and Z." (I'm in a field where careful lit reviews are expected, so I can usually just point to the authors' own lit review!) I find this leaves the door open for me being wrong without embarassment, and puts the onus on the authors to make their case. <BR/><BR/>On another note, I do think there's a difference between saying "This isn't new" and saying "This isn't sufficiently high-impact for this journal."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-39398715332104777022009-03-18T13:52:00.000-05:002009-03-18T13:52:00.000-05:00Seems like 90% of the comments, and the original p...Seems like 90% of the comments, and the original post, claim to be victims of misjudgement.<BR/><BR/>High-profile journals, nearly by definition, try to reject all but the most eye-catching papers. Originality, like strength of evidence, importance of the subject, and clarity of presentation (and other attributes) defies objective measurement.<BR/><BR/>While no doubt injustice exists, I'm positive from extensive first-hand knowledge that far more authors overestimate the originality and importance of their own work than are victims of bad reviewers and editors.<BR/><BR/>People should take reviewers comments more seriously, and recognize authors generally lack perspective on their own work. I know, I know, each person knows THEY are the exception, and can back it up with a long story of particulars.John Vidalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871768524749705799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-3735035790664068422009-03-18T13:24:00.000-05:002009-03-18T13:24:00.000-05:00In this recent case, the reviewer who said that hi...<I>In this recent case, the reviewer who said that his old grad school chum had already solved the major issues has put a PhD student on the topic on which I was attempting to publish.</I><BR/><BR/>If you have proof, name and shame. Maggots like that reviewer shrivel up in the sunlight.Bill Hookerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00366270586730870964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-42410628611763335302009-03-18T12:56:00.000-05:002009-03-18T12:56:00.000-05:00I wish I had seen this post a month ago, when a pa...I wish I had seen this post a month ago, when a paper I submitted to a fancy journal was rejected because my experiment was "a rather obvious thing to do," in the words of the editor. Perhaps, but it wasn't so obvious that anyone else had thought to try it in the four years since the phenomenon I was investigating was discovered. My co-author and I thought "rather obvious" was editor-speak for "I could have thought of this, but somehow I didn't." Sort of like what Anonymous 01:48 points out.<BR/><BR/>It was my first time submitting to an interdisciplinary journal with a one-word title, and I was so intimidated that I just gave up on that journal. I resubmitted to a well-respected specialist journal in my field, and the paper has been accepted. Now I wish I had appealed the editor's decision. I could have documented in great detail why my discovery was important, original, and required some ingenuity to make. I won't fold so easily next time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-37213165293260965712009-03-18T12:46:00.000-05:002009-03-18T12:46:00.000-05:00I review more papers than I write (I'm a slow writ...I review more papers than I write (I'm a slow writer), and I have certainly seen papers that rehash methods that were obsolete years ago. These are often from new grad students and postdocs whose advisers haven't kept up with the field. <BR/><BR/>I do try to provide one or two citations to show that the results and methods are not novel enough to be worth publishing, so that the students can get some education, even if their adviser is incapable. I can't give them a year's course in basic methods of the field in referee comments, though.<BR/><BR/>Since I referee for several journals, I have seen the same bad paper appear multiple times with no attempt to correct the mistakes in method and conclusions that have been pointed out in previous reviews. I've stopped refereeing for third-tier author-pays journals, as the editors seem perfectly willing to accept bullshit papers that I would fail an undergrad for submitting.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14528751349030084532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-39937632362938562062009-03-18T12:08:00.000-05:002009-03-18T12:08:00.000-05:00I, like everyone, have been on the receiving end o...I, like everyone, have been on the receiving end of this criticism, and it is extremely frustrating.<BR/><BR/>That said, I've been on the giving end, as a referee. I always back it up with citations, but it is often not completely clearcut. There are some papers that are clearly a direct repeat of other work (sometimes citing it, sometimes not), and it is easy to say these are not new. <BR/><BR/>There is another, more difficult class of papers, where the authors do something very similar to work already done. How do you decided if something is dissimilar enough to be considered new? For instance, I'm often asked to referee computer simulations of a material, where the basic design is similar to another publication (or several others), with some parameters changed. One could easily (and in an automated fashion) generated an infinite set of papers by tweaking parameters, re-running and re-writing with minimal changes.<BR/><BR/>In general, I don't consider these papers new, unless they give a justification for why the new parameters are interesting, better, etc. I imagine sometimes my critique is in error-- there WAS something new in the paper that wasn't clear to me. This perhaps then is a failing of the author-- they have done something new, but similar to previous work; if the author does not clearly state how their paper extends previous work, but assumes that the reader can deduce this, often the point gets lost. So, my advice to those who are rejected in this way: before getting angry, re-read your work and make sure that you not only did something new, but made clear how it was distinct from previous work. If you did state this clearly, then proceed to frustrated indignation-- but check first.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13156476907087949674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-69825875228444310652009-03-18T11:25:00.000-05:002009-03-18T11:25:00.000-05:00"Journals--such as most scientific society journal..."Journals--such as most scientific society journals--where the editors are actual working scientists know enough about a field to not allow this kind of pernicious bullshit to occur."<BR/><BR/>I emphatically disagree with you that this occurs less frequently in journals where the editors are actual working scientists than in the journals where they are professional editors. In fact, I find that in my field it is more likely to occur in journals where one got the *wrong* working scientists. In FSP's scenario, there's a reviewer who belongs to the old boys club, but these reviewers are just as likely to be editors at a society journal, in which case they have even more power to augment the power of their club. <BR/><BR/>Professional editors have their own problems, but as non-working scientists, they don't have a turf to protect.zbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205346985598789513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-23325049975703623232009-03-18T11:11:00.000-05:002009-03-18T11:11:00.000-05:00I've often wondered why authors are not anonymous ...<I>I've often wondered why authors are not anonymous too, the way reviewers are.</I><BR/><BR/>In my field, theoretical computer science, there has been some push for this, and some <B>heavy</B> pushback by (thankfully, only some of) the top names in the field. Witness the answer to your question played out in this discussion thread: <BR/><BR/>http://weblog.fortnow.com/2009/03/you-can-separate-art-from-artist.html<BR/><BR/>That discussion is about conference reviewing (computer science conferences are refereed and are as important as journal publications if not more), but the pro/con arguments largely apply to journal reviewing as well (to the extent that they apply to conferences).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-70191675039060687952009-03-18T10:50:00.000-05:002009-03-18T10:50:00.000-05:00First submission: The work is novel and interestin...First submission: The work is novel and interesting but wrong. Rejected.<BR/><BR/>Second submission: The work is novel and correct, but not interesting. Rejected.<BR/><BR/>Third submission: the work is interesting and correct, but no longer new. Rejected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-68267877383418729782009-03-18T10:37:00.000-05:002009-03-18T10:37:00.000-05:00I've often wondered why authors are not anonymous ...I've often wondered why authors are not anonymous too, the way reviewers are. In my specialty it would be pointless a lot of the time, but there are a lot of cases, particulary for young researchers who are coming up with new approaches to old problems, where rejection would not be based on who was doing (or not doing) the research.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-40988730206482556402009-03-18T10:30:00.000-05:002009-03-18T10:30:00.000-05:00Got this type of criticism on recent grant review,...Got this type of criticism on recent grant review, the claim that my technical aim had "already been done". No citation. Dear reviewers - if it has been done, then it should be easy to cite!<BR/><BR/>The problem is, it's often difficult to actually demonstrate that something has NOT been done or found before. What do you do? Include your Pubmed search? Quote the intro or discussion of a bigwig who says something hasn't been done?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-90535995877444935572009-03-18T09:38:00.000-05:002009-03-18T09:38:00.000-05:00If you feel you can make a case, it's worth a try ...If you feel you can make a case, it's worth a try because (1) you might succeed, and (2) it's good to let editors know about these things, even if they refuse to reconsider the initial decision.Female Science Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15288567883197987690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-15498486021274596472009-03-18T09:29:00.000-05:002009-03-18T09:29:00.000-05:00I just had this happen to me, exact wording, exact...I just had this happen to me, exact wording, exact disinformation. If I had been publishing alone I probably would have fought it, but my coauthors wanted to just move on to the next journal. I was instantly accepted at the lower-tier journal. This makes me wish I had fought harder at the higher-impact one...Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16995641658376827290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-48528893284973416012009-03-18T09:28:00.000-05:002009-03-18T09:28:00.000-05:00If you can back up the criticism with references, ...If you can back up the criticism with references, that's fine.Female Science Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15288567883197987690noreply@blogger.com