Me

I ‘succeed’, and am in a privileged position in many respects, but the terrain is still rocky. It’s important to share because: (1) it helps us understand (and hopefully improve!) the process; (2) gives sense of proportion to setbacks; (3) gives strategies to tackle setbacks, and learn.

<aside> ✅ I know some stuff…

• Was co-editor-in-chief of a journal for 6 years as we went through indexing process
• Review for conferences (x4? annually) and journals (probably 6-10 a year post-editorship), and grants. Occasionally book proposals.
• I write quite a lot and with a wide network; On gscholar ~3000 citations, H-index of 27, >100 things, and >70 venues.

</aside>

<aside> 😩 But…In last 6 months,

• 5*desk rejects (PNAS→NatMI→PLOS; BDS→AIOS; EduRev→EduRev; ASIST→ILS)
• 2*reviewed rejects (1 on 3rd round→palcom, 1 on 2nd→ ??)
• 1*grant rejected (2nd round)

Desk rejects were:

• Scope of topic (PNAS)
• Method (review, ASIST)
• Something else (BDS, EduRev)

And the papers…

</aside>

Sharing challenges…

My wall of rejection and why it matters

What’s the process look like?

<aside> <img src="/icons/book_gray.svg" alt="/icons/book_gray.svg" width="40px" /> Some useful links…

1. Think about the key things you want to be known for, and then any sub-things. Be pragmatic about getting things out. For a thesis, remember publications in the UK and Australian model can serve ‘dual purpose’ (this isn’t true in some systems) i.e., you can have a thesis that includes elements that have been previously published. BUT there may be copyright issues…http://sjgknight.com/finding-knowledge/2015-12-23-writing-your-thesis-and-using-your-publications
2. For PhD students consider creating a publication plan from your thesis https://patthomson.net/2012/09/03/writing-from-the-phd-thesis-letting-go/
3. https://patthomson.net/2018/07/23/five-clues-to-choosing-the-right-journal/
4. https://patthomson.net/2019/10/14/reviewing-your-first-paper/
5. Flowchart below (editable, raw) </aside>

<aside> <img src="/icons/map_gray.svg" alt="/icons/map_gray.svg" width="40px" /> Activity 1: Using the Miro (login, or use password peerreview), add:

1. Nightmares - bad experiences you’ve had with peer review
2. Dreams - great experiences you’ve had with peer review
3. Sage - sage advice you’d give in navigating peer review (or/and links)

</aside>

https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVKWk59KU=/?moveToWidget=3458764584998548767&cot=14

Nightmares, Dreams, and Advice (based on Activity 1 above)

Search resultsCase

COPE cases about Peer Review

Shit My Reviewers Say

Shit My Reviewers Say: Examples of bad peer review

<aside> <img src="/icons/map_gray.svg" alt="/icons/map_gray.svg" width="40px" /> Some generic examples of poor review comments

• Cite x,y,z (common author, obviously the reviewer)
• Cite x (x hasn’t come out yet, it’s obviously by the reviewer)
• You’ve misunderstood x (you authored x)
• The authors should have x (x is a totally different, possibly appropriate, approach that has no bearing on the merits of the approach in fact taken)
• The researchers are [some personal flaw] (e.g., my very first submission a reviewer said: “reads like it was written by an undergrad/masters student” (I was); either the reviewer thinks this is true, in which case they should be supportive, or they are just being insulting).
• I am very cautious of inferring someone’s experience with English language (e.g., “the authors are probably not native speakers” is sometimes not maliciously intended, but could be, and is not always correct (see e.g., https://patthomson.net/2020/10/12/style-tone-and-grammar-native-speaker-bias-in-peer-reviews/ ); it’s fine to point out issues with the language, but don’t make inferences about competence).
• “Throughout the paper they x”, without any examples of x </aside>

<aside> <img src="/icons/map_gray.svg" alt="/icons/map_gray.svg" width="40px" /> Lessons

• focus on the work not the researcher, nor the work you would have done
• you can suggest citing your own work, but be very cautious and consider adding other authors too (and flag that you’ve done this to the editor in the confidential comments)
• authors cannot expect reviewers to do their job, but they can expect specific examples of issues, and sometimes it’s appropriate to provide suggested remedies </aside>

Responding to reviews: The good, the bad, and the ugly

1. Emotional. If your first response asks “did they even read the paper” that's probably ok, but while reviewers do make mistakes, so do authors; engage generously.
2. Make a table, I typically cluster similar comments and organise them so minor things are moved to the bottom. Number each comment and indicate who said it. Track changes on your doc, it is irritating to not know what was done or to have to check if any reviewer comments are missing.
3. In revising, consider what the reviewers are saying, and what that means about how you read the manuscript; they may have misunderstood but that may still require edits for clarification. Sometimes reviewers are wrong, and it's ok to explain why comments have not been actioned.
4. include an overarching letter for any really big things (or where you have not actioned a significant comment)