next »

[crowie]

Msparticularity--thanks for your story.  I am working on something that sounds similar in terms of the size and type of specialized audience that might be interested in it and I am hoping I will get the kinds of results that you described.

Massive_attack, if you have stuff that's actually done, you should really just give yourself 24-48 hours max to go through it one more time and then send it off.  Don't give yourself two weeks or a month to revise it one or two or an infinite number of times before you send it, because that will just give you an excuse to stall again. Just send it.  As another poster noted, too, it also helps to have a 'buddy'.  If you can find a buddy (or if you have one, a spouse, partner, or close friend) who will hold you to it, call or email your buddy and say "Hey buddy, in 48 hours I will be sending my article on X to the journal of Y.  Please email me or call me in 48 hours to check that I did it."  Your buddy has to be willing to be stern with you so that you take the accountability seriously.

A diabolical technique I've heard of was to choose a charitable organization that fights for the opposite side of an issue you feel passionate about [eg. if you were a neo-Nazi you might choose the Southern Poverty Law Center ;-) ].  Give $50 to a friend and tell your friend that if you have not revised and submitted your article to journal Y by X date to donate that $50 to the organization that you are against.   I heard that it worked in an experiment on trying to get scholarly writers to produce more pages.

[bookishone]

As another poster noted, too, it also helps to have a 'buddy'.  If you can find a buddy (or if you have one, a spouse, partner, or close friend) who will hold you to it, call or email your buddy and say "Hey buddy, in 48 hours I will be sending my article on X to the journal of Y.  Please email me or call me in 48 hours to check that I did it."  Your buddy has to be willing to be stern with you so that you take the accountability seriously.

A diabolical technique I've heard of was to choose a charitable organization that fights for the opposite side of an issue you feel passionate about [eg. if you were a neo-Nazi you might choose the Southern Poverty Law Center ;-) ].  Give $50 to a friend and tell your friend that if you have not revised and submitted your article to journal Y by X date to donate that $50 to the organization that you are against.   I heard that it worked in an experiment on trying to get scholarly writers to produce more pages.

There is a website where you can write in and set your goals, and then if you don't meet them, the website automatically sends a pre-set amount of money to some organization. The most effective is indeed to send money to a hated organization. Of course, you have to be honest about your goals and whether or not you've met them. I can't think of the name of the website, but someone on the fora must.

[msparticularity]

Msparticularity--thanks for your story.  I am working on something that sounds similar in terms of the size and type of specialized audience that might be interested in it and I am hoping I will get the kinds of results that you described.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you! It sounds so bizarre to say this, but a really constructive R&R was, for me, a better experience than a not-very-informed immediate acceptance. (I got one of each in a three-month span.)

[southerntransplant]

My doctoral advisor was somewhat hands-off and a bit (or maybe a lot) disengaged. When things sucked, he wasn't the person to try and buck you up. But he did have one of the single best pieces of advice I've ever received.

Before I graduated and before I had ever published a peer-reviewed article, I asked him what he did when he got a rejection notice from a journal - this was the one thing that scared the bejeezus out of me. Rejection! How humiliating!

He said that he would read the review, then read the manuscript, then think, "Well, am I right?" He'd let the thought swirl in his mind for a day or so. If he still believed he was, he would continue working on the manuscript until it got published.

He said that the answer to that question is the bottom line. "Am I right?" Not "Did I present the case effectively?" or "Was I clear enough?" It was "Am I right?" Because if the answer is "Yes", the rest can be fixed.

A long time ago (maybe 11 years?) I sent a manuscript off to a journal and it got hacked to pieces. At the time I was horrified by the reviews and put them away, never to look in that folder again. Two years ago, when casting around for a topic I could easily write about, I came across this rejected manuscript. I looked at it and looked at the reviews and said, "These guys are wrong! Let me fix this up." And I did.

I submitted it to another, equivalent journal.

Guess what? It got rejected again!

However, in the intervening years I've managed to figure out how to look past the initial pain of rejection and see how the reviewers might have been either right or wrong. And I saw how the primary rejector had misinterpreted an argument I had made. I contacted the editor, made my case for reconsideration, and he suggested I resubmit as a new submission after addressing these comments.

So I did. And it got accepted.

What was interesting was that, in order to address the rejector's comments, I had to add an entirely new section. This satisfied the rejector, but prompted a comment from a new reviewer essentially noting that that particular section made the paper too long, and that anyone with half a brain (I'm paraphrasing here) would realize that that section wasn't necessary, and what kind of half-wit (paraphrasing) would ask for such a section to be included?

However, the bottom line, again, was "Am I right?" You might need the Emotionless Cap (I have an old ballcap in my office I use for that), you might need a walk around the campus or to bowl ten frames or 45 minutes in the batting cages (my favorite relief) or a month away from it.

But don't let a manuscript declination change the way you honestly feel about your work.

[reader]

I agree with others here.  Here's my quick take:

1. Send your draft to a trusted colleague or two for input.

2. Make it the best you can be by anticipating potential responses based on that input.

3. Send it out. 

You've got to get the process rolling because the review process can take so long.  And the only test of whether your article is "good enough" is to go through the actual review process.  Have a few other journals in mind if needed, but your decision of which journal should be based in part on the responses you continue to receive on the manuscript.

[goldfinch]

Good luck, Crowie!  I'm in a similar situation and find all of this advice helpful as well...in particular the emotionless hat. 

This is my first summer on the T-T and I am quite anxious about using the time off from teaching well.  I have a long and ambitious reading list, along with of course the conference paper due in a month and the dreaded diss. revisions.  Since classes let up I've managed to do a heck of a lot of reading, but not to get back in the mindset of revising the conference paper or the manuscript.  So, I hear ya, but it sounds like you've got a good plan of action.  I plan to put on my emotionless hat while writing tomorrow and think about what I want to say in this conference paper -- rather than getting hung up on anxieties about how it [and follow-up article] will be received.

[bookishone]

As another poster noted, too, it also helps to have a 'buddy'.  If you can find a buddy (or if you have one, a spouse, partner, or close friend) who will hold you to it, call or email your buddy and say "Hey buddy, in 48 hours I will be sending my article on X to the journal of Y.  Please email me or call me in 48 hours to check that I did it."  Your buddy has to be willing to be stern with you so that you take the accountability seriously.

A diabolical technique I've heard of was to choose a charitable organization that fights for the opposite side of an issue you feel passionate about [eg. if you were a neo-Nazi you might choose the Southern Poverty Law Center ;-) ].  Give $50 to a friend and tell your friend that if you have not revised and submitted your article to journal Y by X date to donate that $50 to the organization that you are against.   I heard that it worked in an experiment on trying to get scholarly writers to produce more pages.

There is a website where you can write in and set your goals, and then if you don't meet them, the website automatically sends a pre-set amount of money to some organization. The most effective is indeed to send money to a hated organization. Of course, you have to be honest about your goals and whether or not you've met them. I can't think of the name of the website, but someone on the fora must.

Found the website where you commit to your goals by "signing" a virtual "contract," and if you fail (you indicate a referee), they donate your money, especially effective if it's to a hated organization. See

http://www.stickk.com

Other, less drastic options include

http://www.pledgehammer.com (honor system, you just make a pledge to fulfill your goals or else donate to some charity)

http://www.mygoals.com (email reminders of your goals)

Hope this helps!

[crowie]

Good luck, Crowie!  I'm in a similar situation and find all of this advice helpful as well...in particular the emotionless hat. 

Thanks!  And thanks for the links!

[onestep]

Massive_attack, it's funny, but I have the opposite issue.  I have no problems sending out articles for peer review, but get anxious about invited papers.  For peer reviewed articles, I take some comfort in the anonymity.  I've learned that every one of my papers was strengthened after review, and like Msparticularity, I (masochistically) prefer a good review over a cursory acceptance.  It was even fun to fix the last few papers as the critiques felt more like puzzles to solve.  Invited papers, however, have way more pressure.  I feel like the bar is higher because I don't want to disappoint people I know. 

I hope my story helps you reframe the process and that the advice from the other forumites helps you get over this hump. Good luck on your work! 

[philo]

Massive_attack, it's funny, but I have the opposite issue.  I have no problems sending out articles for peer review, but get anxious about invited papers.  For peer reviewed articles, I take some comfort in the anonymity.  I've learned that every one of my papers was strengthened after review, and like Msparticularity, I (masochistically) prefer a good review over a cursory acceptance.  It was even fun to fix the last few papers as the critiques felt more like puzzles to solve.  Invited papers, however, have way more pressure.  I feel like the bar is higher because I don't want to disappoint people I know. 

I was going to say something similar.  I'm working on a book, and I'm a little nervous about its going out for review with my name attached.  On the other hand, I've never felt any hesitation about sending stuff to journals that blind review.  If the piece is a stinker, at most one person will be able to link its badness to me.

[jackit]

After all the crap I've reviewed, I am unconcerned that (to paraphrase Einstein) any squeak of mine won't necessarily be a trumpet solo.

[frigatepelican]

i don't really have anything to add but additional praise for marginalia's idea of the emotionless hat (I've been doing a similar thing but lacked a phrase to describe it--now I have one!).

I also wanted to say as someone struggling with what seems like the same issues, just the dissertation chapter version, it is both strangely disturbing and strangely comforting to know that my professors apparently struggle with the same things.  Perhaps it is obvious, but I think we tend to think that our particular set of problems will end when we clear the next hurdle.

Anyway, very good thread and all-around good advice.  Thanks to massive_attack for starting it.

[slacwriter]

i don't really have anything to add but additional praise for marginalia's idea of the emotionless hat (I've been doing a similar thing but lacked a phrase to describe it--now I have one!).

I also wanted to say as someone struggling with what seems like the same issues, just the dissertation chapter version, it is both strangely disturbing and strangely comforting to know that my professors apparently struggle with the same things.  Perhaps it is obvious, but I think we tend to think that our particular set of problems will end when we clear the next hurdle.

Anyway, very good thread and all-around good advice.  Thanks to massive_attack for starting it.

Frigatepelican: Your struggles are just beginning. I mean that half-in-jest. It's only been this year that I've noticed how much the dissertation taught me about pushing through certain difficult points in the writing process. Those points are still difficult, but they produce less anxiety, because I've been there, done that.

[miss_balanced]

One of the first manuscripts that I submitted from my postdoc was after I presented the data at a meeting. A journal editor was begging (new journal, trying to raise impact factor, so he really was begging) for manuscripts and the journal was in my field, so my advisor and I figured it would be a good forum for this first manuscript. The reviews were by folks from my field, so were fair and filled with good intentions. I am in a field that is hugely supportive of students and jr. faculty, so am quite lucky in that respect. Do you have similar opportunities in your field?

In addition, pre-submission (in-house and an external reviewer) peer-review was mandatory at the place where I did my postdoc. By the time I submitted my manuscript, I was pretty confident that it was scientifically sound and well-written. Take all the advice of the other posters and get your manuscript reviewed prior to submitting! It's better to have someone who knows you rip you apart than a stranger who doesn't know how good you really are.

And really...what's the worse that can happen? You get rejected. Revise and resubmit to same journal or to another. Rejection of one paper doesn't mean that your whole research agenda is rejected...

[vicecityprof]

Already lots of good advice given, but I had to respond with some words said to me before I graduated, from a Professor Bigshot (academy member, etc.):

(I'm paraphrasing)

Rejection is the norm in this business. Everyone gets rejected, more often than they are accepted.  One of the tricks is to learn to never, ever, let it get to you and learn not to take it personally. -- But those who take it personally never get over it and never get published and are miserable or embittered.   

So I don't see how your behavior is`honorable'.  You are trying to avoid one of the defining features of our profession.  Just follow the `deadline' advice from one of the first responses and get to it. You'll find it's actually fun, and comparing shamefully, poorly written manuscript reviews with your friends over a few beers is fun too. At this point, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain!

I too am SLAC, formerly of  R1-or-die grad school culture.