Today, I am reviewing 4 manuscripts that have been submitted to peer-review journals in psychology. This is a laborious process that will consume all of today and likely tomorrow. It requires a careful reading, a thoughtful critique, and then a delicate written review. I am certain I will recommend a revise/resubmit for some manuscripts and rejection for other manuscripts. Rarely do I find a manuscript that I recommend acceptance in the first round. This is the nature of peer-review and this gatekeeping plays a key role in the advancement of science. I know many researchers who may bitch and bemoan the process, but deep inside I think they agree with the process.
One of the duties/responsibilities of academicians is the gatekeeping of research aimed to be published in peer-reviewed journals. The intent is to monitor and screen the quality and integrity of research that is to become public knowledge. On the surface, this may seem unfair because it restricts freedom of speech for those whose scholarship is rejected. I can hear some people say that it is the arrogance of scholars to censor people with whom they may disagree. Yet, this type of peer-review is an important element to research. It prevents misinformation from becoming spread to the masses and it encourages better, more rigorous research.
It is hard when you recommend a manuscript to be rejected because it does not pass the muster of the given journal. Each journal has a set of different criteria and the acceptance rates across these journals may vary greatly. Among the top journals, acceptance rates are about 10-20%. Yet, it's a part of the job. What is harder is when you know the author/researcher based on the study questions, writing style, and other clues (e.g., self-references). Hardest is when the author in question is your friend!
I recently recommended that a manuscript be rejected and the action editor for the journal agreed with me. I knew the area of research well because I conduct very similar research. I also happened to figure out the identity of the author based on various clues in the manuscript. In many ways, the authors had an impressive data set and it could have been a great manuscript. So what went wrong? I think there were two fundamental problems. First, the authors had 2 chances to revise the manuscript and each time failed to address some fundamental flaws in the study. I was the third set of eyes to review the manuscript and unfortunately earlier reviews failed to pick up some methodological flaws to the study. Second, authors sometimes have a poor self-assessment of their study or their writing or their abilities. Reviews are meant to keep you on your toes and to get you to become a better researcher. Some people, however, get too defensive of their work and fail to see past this clouded judgement. It is unfortunate.
My own experience with submitting manuscripts is a roller coaster of emotions and thoughts. Fortunately, I have not had an unanticipated rejection in a while. Sometimes, I know my work may not have a great shot in a certain journal, but submit anyway for the learning experience and the off-chance it gets in. Other times, I submit to journals that I know my work fits nicely and I have figured out what the editors' like/don't like. In almost all cases, a manuscript decision is to revise and resubmit the manuscript. How you handle a revise and resubmit can vary. I encourage students and jr colleagues to sit with the reviews for a few days but to start proactively addressing the issues within a week or two. Some people get so despondent that they give up. This is the wrong thing to do. It is important to take a long view and gut it out. It also is important to take action right away. I once was told that most revise/resubmit actions lead to publication but many people give up when they receive such a decision. It is unfortunate. Here, persistence pays.
Well, best for me to get back to work on these reviews.
Posted by richlee at August 24, 2005 10:53 AMGreat entry! As a new researcher who recently submitted her first manuscript, I echo the advice to stay positive, be persistent, and work hard to respond to editor and reviewer comments. The manuscript improved, I learned alot, and publication looks very promising. When all seemed lost, support from friends and colleagues helped me stay motivated and positive.
Posted by: Lynn at August 24, 2005 01:09 PMI also would like to really stress the importance of good writing. Poor writing itself can lead to a manuscript rejection. Despite our smarts, many researchers are terrible writers.
Now, I do not profess to be a great writer. In fact, I know I am not and so I have had to learn to watch my grammar (tenses, punctuation, syntax). I also have had to learn how to structure concise sentences, coherent paragraphs, and especially transitions.
I encourage people to read through the APA Publication Manual which really is helpful (despite its thickness) as well as Bird by Bird by Ann Lamont which is about the psychological process of writing.
Posted by: Rich at August 24, 2005 02:12 PM