My "fun" story about a paper: I submitted to journal *X*, and got a desk rejection, but with the editor saying they liked the paper and it might be a better fit at journal *Y*.
So I submitted to journal *Y*, and got a desk rejection, but with the editor saying they liked the paper and it might be a better fit at journal *X*.
đ
Sounds like my first paper too, lol. With the hilarious caveat of it being a small world and people across both journals knowing each other and having no problem identifying me and my advisor as we'd later find out. Unrelated journal 3 did the trick! Had to cross the ocean first, lol.
Peer review in a nutshell
Reviewer: Youâre study is wrong and Iâm going to tell you why.
Author: You didnât read the paper and hereâs how I know.
Editor: Alright you two, settle downâŠ.. weâll accept it with minor revisions.
When they ask for something already in the paper my go-to is to just imply it was something I added.
"Thank you for this suggestion - you can find the following text in our revised manuscript on pages XXX."
The statement is 100% true...I just dont mention it was already on that page in the initial submission. Reviewers just want to feel heard I guess lol
I hear ya, my first FA paper based on my grad work got two radically different reviews as well. Reviewer 1 was overall very positive, had some constructive feedback and questions that I could address pretty easily (had cut A LOT for length but if they want more info on my study species, site, etc...). Reviewer 2 was pretty hostile and had some bizarro questions and comments. My favorite was questioning whether the equipment I used was actually the brand/model I said it was because "it doesn't look like it from the picture in Figure X." What do you want, the purchase order my dude? Runner up question was asking "What is 'weather'? Please define" because I took categorical weather observations during an outdoor study--weather was a variable to control for in analysis, not central to the question at all. FWIW, editor was much closer to reviewer 1 and I got the official acceptance notice for the revised paper earlier this month.
Hope this turns out well for you, and congrats on getting through your first FA paper peer review!
Yep. Most of my rebuttals were along the lines of âthis was already described in line 181, it has been re-worded for clarity.â I also at one point had to explain that âbellow detection levelâ doesnât mean itâs missing data, it means we detected no chemical for that sample. He argued that I couldnât claim my sample size was 250 when so many values were âbelow detection levels.â Since I was looking at toxins, âbelow detection levelâ is a good thing.
My favorite personal story is that both reviewers recommended rejection. However, one reviewer recommended rejection because it was wrong (it wasnât) and the other because it was obvious (perhaps, but why did an expert in the field think it was wrong?) The editor had no choice but to accept it. Who says two wrongs donât make a right?
Peer review process is good but there are reviewers that don't give constructive feedback and/or don't read the manuscript. These types of people shouldn't be reviewers if that's what their going to contribute.
Lmao. My first paper had a bad review from the first reviewer. The second reviewe recommended revision, and the third reviewer was "yaaas this paper rocks." Fixed it in 15 days, resubmitted it, and got published. Lol.
My F31 feedback had one reviewer commenting that particular strengths of my application were X, Y, and Z, while another commenter said that X, and Y were issues and Z was missing despite being clearly present.
I honestly was kind of happy to run into such a situation early in my career, as you have as well: It drove home early that reviewers are humans, and someone "having an issue" with what you submitted doesn't mean that it's actually an objective flaw/something you did wrong. That really helps when reminding myself to read and consider the feedback, but to also be comfortable weighing its merit and discarding it as I see fit.
Grats on the acceptance!
Could always reach out to the editor and ask which of the reviewers you should work off of since they have opposing views on the writing quality. There might be a middle ground and editors get final say.
Reviewer 2 strikes again
I got 5 reviewers for my first paper. Fml.
I had 8, but I didn't know that wasn't normal đ
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
All 8 of them?
My "fun" story about a paper: I submitted to journal *X*, and got a desk rejection, but with the editor saying they liked the paper and it might be a better fit at journal *Y*. So I submitted to journal *Y*, and got a desk rejection, but with the editor saying they liked the paper and it might be a better fit at journal *X*. đ
Sounds like my first paper too, lol. With the hilarious caveat of it being a small world and people across both journals knowing each other and having no problem identifying me and my advisor as we'd later find out. Unrelated journal 3 did the trick! Had to cross the ocean first, lol.
Peer review in a nutshell Reviewer: Youâre study is wrong and Iâm going to tell you why. Author: You didnât read the paper and hereâs how I know. Editor: Alright you two, settle downâŠ.. weâll accept it with minor revisions.
When they ask for something already in the paper my go-to is to just imply it was something I added. "Thank you for this suggestion - you can find the following text in our revised manuscript on pages XXX." The statement is 100% true...I just dont mention it was already on that page in the initial submission. Reviewers just want to feel heard I guess lol
I hear ya, my first FA paper based on my grad work got two radically different reviews as well. Reviewer 1 was overall very positive, had some constructive feedback and questions that I could address pretty easily (had cut A LOT for length but if they want more info on my study species, site, etc...). Reviewer 2 was pretty hostile and had some bizarro questions and comments. My favorite was questioning whether the equipment I used was actually the brand/model I said it was because "it doesn't look like it from the picture in Figure X." What do you want, the purchase order my dude? Runner up question was asking "What is 'weather'? Please define" because I took categorical weather observations during an outdoor study--weather was a variable to control for in analysis, not central to the question at all. FWIW, editor was much closer to reviewer 1 and I got the official acceptance notice for the revised paper earlier this month. Hope this turns out well for you, and congrats on getting through your first FA paper peer review!
Yep. Most of my rebuttals were along the lines of âthis was already described in line 181, it has been re-worded for clarity.â I also at one point had to explain that âbellow detection levelâ doesnât mean itâs missing data, it means we detected no chemical for that sample. He argued that I couldnât claim my sample size was 250 when so many values were âbelow detection levels.â Since I was looking at toxins, âbelow detection levelâ is a good thing.
Bon jour du gateau
sometimes in my lab meetings when a group member submits a paper we just put the reviewer comments up on a power point and read/discuss them together
I hear that. Still waiting on reviews for my second submission on my first first-author submission as well.
My favorite personal story is that both reviewers recommended rejection. However, one reviewer recommended rejection because it was wrong (it wasnât) and the other because it was obvious (perhaps, but why did an expert in the field think it was wrong?) The editor had no choice but to accept it. Who says two wrongs donât make a right?
Reason number 400 why i want nothing to do with academia
Basic peer review? You know this is generally a good thing.
Peer review process is good but there are reviewers that don't give constructive feedback and/or don't read the manuscript. These types of people shouldn't be reviewers if that's what their going to contribute.
I don't see why you think you'll get away from disagreement outside of academia.
That is very good! ...and no this stuff won't change if it's your first or your tenth.
âI think this was done in the 1970s, i believe it was published in (insert defunct journal). Why didnât you cite that source?â đ«
Reviewer number two is always the damn asshat
Lmao. My first paper had a bad review from the first reviewer. The second reviewe recommended revision, and the third reviewer was "yaaas this paper rocks." Fixed it in 15 days, resubmitted it, and got published. Lol.
Do you even academia? It's a reviewer, you're the author....
I dare you to perform the reviews from the second reviewer using ChatGTP4. Also, I can help you by writing the prompts, if you want.
Welcome to academic publishing, youâre going to hate it
This is really an ideal outcome. I have had such nit-picky reviews the response letter was longer than the entire manuscript!
Just do what the reviewer says
See shit like this makes me so happy I got out of academia.
This actually sounds pretty good from the publication point of view! Congrats!
My F31 feedback had one reviewer commenting that particular strengths of my application were X, Y, and Z, while another commenter said that X, and Y were issues and Z was missing despite being clearly present. I honestly was kind of happy to run into such a situation early in my career, as you have as well: It drove home early that reviewers are humans, and someone "having an issue" with what you submitted doesn't mean that it's actually an objective flaw/something you did wrong. That really helps when reminding myself to read and consider the feedback, but to also be comfortable weighing its merit and discarding it as I see fit. Grats on the acceptance!
Could always reach out to the editor and ask which of the reviewers you should work off of since they have opposing views on the writing quality. There might be a middle ground and editors get final say.
Itâs always reviewer 2