Are All Citations Created Equal?

14. August 2013

Pablo Artal

OSA Fellow Pablo Artal has kindly allowed OPN’s Bright Futures career blog to adapt and republish content from his popular blog Optics Confidential. In his blog, Artal fields questions from students, colleagues and other researchers on science, society and managing a career in optics.
 
Dear Pablo, I am confused about what works to cite in my scientific papers. Should I cite only the papers that helped me with my research? Or should I expand the list to include those that I found clearly wrong or even misleading? –Bruno, Italy.
 
I believe the proper approach is to cite everything that you actually used during your research. This includes seminal papers that may have inspired your project, articles on the methods you used, papers presenting similar previous work, and even research that you may consider incorrect or biased—although you should mention why you think it is invalid. This is an important part of the scientific process, and it will help your colleagues in the future.
 
Your question brings up an issue that I have long found troubling. As you know, the number of citations a scientist receives on his or her papers can be a deciding factor in receiving grants, academic jobs and prestige. The so-called h-index, referring to the number of papers that a scientist has with the same or higher number of citations, is a particularly important metric. For instance, if I have an h-index of 41, that means that 41 of my articles have received 41 or more citations. Some time ago, I covered this issue in more detail in my other blog in Spanish.
 
Although the number of citations is a better measure of scientific performance than simply counting the number of published papers, it is far from perfect. There are many possible problems with this system. For example, the differences in the number of publications and citations among different scientific fields generally make it difficult to compare between subject areas.
 
You can get an automatic count of citations on an article in Google Scholar or Web of Science, but this doesn’t take into account the fact that citations are not all equal—maybe you know a scientist whose work has a large number of citations, but some of them are actually negative. To avoid problems like this, I propose that we classify citations into four categories. I’ve listed them below with some examples obtained from actual papers.
 
Seminal citations:
“We followed the approach proposed and first implemented by (ref) to perform the current experiment…”
 
Positive citations:
“The results of figure 5 are in good agreement with those presented in (ref)”
“Figure 3 compares our results with those of previous works (ref)”
 
Neutral citations:
“Although we followed the same procedure, we were not able to reproduce their results. This may be due to some individual variability. However, several other authors’ findings were similar to ours.”

Negative citations:
“The suggestion by (ref) is clearly incorrect…”
“An additional problem in this study is the surprising lack of details provided on some of the most relevant methods and procedures used.”
 
I understand the technical difficulty of classifying different types of citations, but this system would provide a more accurate depiction of scientific value. Appropriate software could classify every citation within these categories, and each would be rated with points. For instance, seminal citations would be worth two points, positive ones would be worth one, neutral citations would have no points and negative citations would be negative one point.
 
A few decades ago, many of us were unhappy with the mere counting of papers as a measure of success, and the current system has helped address that. But other issues have cropped up. We could not begin to imagine at that time the large emphasis that would be placed on citation counts today. Perhaps the time has come to reevaluate.
 
Pablo Artal (Pablo@um.es) is an OSA Fellow and professor of optics at the University of Murcia, Spain. He is an optical and vision scientist with an interest in visual optics, optical instrumentation, adaptive optics, and biomedical optics and photonics.

Academic Careers, Career Path, Publishing , , , , , , , , , ,

Writing Up a (Scientific) Storm

30. July 2013

Arti Agrawal

As a Ph.D. student, I was exposed to only two kinds of science writing: textbooks and journal articles. When our work reached a sufficiently advanced stage, we wrote our own papers and submitted them to journals. I still remember the excitement of submitting my first paper—and the disappointment of my first rejection. My energy and attention, like those of other graduate students I knew, were focused on research. Writing about our work was a bit of a chore.

However, since that time my perception of writing in science has changed dramatically. Today, I see it as a creative process almost on par with research. Writing should be an enjoyable process of content creation that allows you to present your research in an effective manner and express your individual style.

Not only can writing be personally fulfilling, it’s also professionally important. Doing good science is fantastic, but if that work does not reach other people, then much of our purpose remains unachieved. Having well-written papers can help get you published—which can be critical to progressing in your career. Increasingly, employers are also looking for examples of less technical writing skills. Writing does not have to be a hardship—you just have to start thinking about the task in a new way.

Consider writing a blog. The potential outlets for your work are more varied than ever before. For example, a blog (such as OSA’s blog, this career blog, or my own blog) is a great way to communicate more informally about topics in science. This format gives you a lot of freedom in choosing the subject matter, technical level and content type of your posts. You can express opinions on other people’s work, policy and current issues in science.

Take advantage of new opportunities in traditional publications. Science magazines such as OPN allow for more creative writing than peer-review journals do. They include letters to the editor, reviews, opinions and interviews. Even with journals, the ability to upload supplementary data, videos and other multimedia means we can be quite innovative in how we engage others with our work. Papers no longer need to be collections of static graphs and text.

Utilize social media. By using social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, we can target information to specific people or to large groups. On Twitter, we can draw attention to a piece of work by using just 140 characters. Online availability of content means we can open a window and speak to the whole world—an exciting development! What you write today can be read all over the world in a way that wasn’t possible just a decade ago.

These days, I miss writing if I don’t do it every so often—something I never would have imagined. In fact, I like it so much that I co-wrote an entire book! The more you write, the easier it gets, so take advantage of every opportunity and seek out new ways to practice your skills.

Arti Agrawal (arti_agrawal@hotmail.com) is a lecturer at City University London in the department of electrical, electronic and information engineering at the School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences. To follow her personal blog, visit http://artiagrawal.wordpress.com.

Academic Careers, Career Path, Communication Skills, Graduate School, Job Search, Publishing , , , , , , , , ,

Lessons from an Editorial Term

5. July 2012

Pablo Artal

OSA Fellow Pablo Artal recently finished his second and final term as a topical editor of the Journal of the Optical Society of America A. Here, he shares his advice to authors and reviewers based on his six years of experience.

For scientists, writing is as vital as planning and executing experiments. Soon after a researcher has published a few articles in a field, it is typical for him or her to be asked to serve as a reviewer. This can be looked at as both a responsibility to the community and a career-development tool for yourself.

When I became an editor, I gained a whole new perspective. For those authors and reviewers who have not yet served as an editor, perhaps you can learn something from my experiences.

Be thorough and professional. I believe that a research area’s strength is related to the quality of the reviewers for its journals. Good reviewers behave like invisible mentors—combing through the data, suggesting additional experiments and giving specific, actionable feedback.

Expect to be treated equal to your colleagues. If you are an editor for long enough, you may have to reject a paper submitted by a friend or close colleague. A fundamental principle for editing and reviewing is that every author should be treated equally. If you can’t do this, you should not edit the paper. Real friends understand that you have to follow the same rules for everybody.  

Be generous with citations. Most authors are very gracious about citing the work of others. Of course, there are some who avoiding citing other groups in favor of noting their own previous work. Self-citations are in many cases necessary. However, when relevant papers from others are missing, it can signal a low-quality paper to an editor. So be generous; it’s good for others and good for you.

Be alert for plagiarism. A fundamental task for editors is to detect and reject articles that are either clearly wrong or direct copies of previously published articles (plagiarism). More sophisticated forms of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, can be difficult to find. I realized that many cases occur due to lack of author education or differing norms. For example, some researchers do not view it as wrong to duplicate their own research. Part of the editor’s job is to clearly communicate what is acceptable, what is not, and why. 

Clearly articulate the purpose of your paper. Sometimes a paper receives reviews indicating that it seems to be correct, but the point of the research is not clear. In a good journal, these papers are often rejected. Before submitting an article, be honest with yourself: Is this a paper I would like to read myself? Does it advance the field?

Don’t assume friends make the best reviewers. Most journals, including JOSA A, ask the author for reviewer recommendations. Usually, authors tend to suggest someone they know well. I was initially surprised in cases when I followed an author’s recommendation and received reviews that were perhaps unduly negative. Surprisingly, the most critical reviews can come from close colleagues—possibly because they are the ones who are closest to the details of your research area. Be aware of the possibility of bias, both positive and negative.

Review as you would like to be reviewed. OSA journals would not be possible without the tireless work of devoted volunteers. However, there are a few people who consistently refuse to review papers. It is not acceptable to systematically avoid this duty if you are an active scientist. Think twice when you are asked to review a paper, remembering the Golden Rule—Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you.

Get it right. As an editor, I was worried about the possibility that I would accept a paper that was completely wrong. A paper whose conclusions miss the mark is not necessarily a problem; there are many of those out there and they are consubstantial with scientific development. However, if a published paper contains simple and fundamental mistakes, the editor is to blame, so be careful.

Serving as an editor was a great experience that I would highly recommend. You learn more about your field and human nature. Hopefully it will make you a better scientist and person.

Pablo Artal (pablo@um.es) is an OSA fellow and professor of Optics at the University of Murcia, Spain. His blog covers optical research and related aspects (http://pabloartal.blogspot.com/).

Career Path, Communication Skills, Publishing , , , , ,

The Publishing Path: A Conversation with Costanza Zucca

11. May 2012

This week, OPN talks with Costanza Zucca, editorial manager with the Frontiers journals, a series of open-access publications driven by researchers for researchers. Costanza obtained a Ph.D. in plasma physics from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, in 2009. Her work on thermonuclear fusion research focused on the design of operational scenarios with high-output power for the first prototype of a fusion reactor.

After taking a sabbatical in South America, Costanza decided to pursue a different career path. She quit research and joined the Frontiers group at the end of 2009 as the main coordinator of the marketing and communication office. She became editorial manager at the end of 2010, overseeing all activities related to the current "Frontiers in" journals as well as the launch of new journals.

OPN: How did you know that publishing was your calling?

Costanza: While I sort of stumbled into it by accident, looking back it's clear that I’ve always had a genuine interest in communicating about science. Even during my student years, when I was working on a thermonuclear fusion experiment, I often volunteered to show visitors around our facilities. I enjoyed thinking of new “kitchen physics” examples that could help render complex concepts into something tangible. One of my favorites was figuring out the number of microwave ovens that was required to match the power generated by our electron-cyclotron resonance heating (over 3,000!). Now that I am working at the interface between academia and industry at an international level, there are higher stakes, but it’s still about communicating science.

OPN: How did you use your skills and expertise to start working in this field?

Costanza: It’s been a natural fit. Frontiers was started by a group of active scientists, and I instantly felt aligned with the company’s philosophy of shaping the future of scientific communication. In a way, working for a start-up is similar to research work, in that you have to be very creative in thinking of new initiatives, then pick the most promising ideas and experiment with them. Those skills were well rooted in me, since I came from a research background.

OPN: What are the most difficult and rewarding aspects of your job?

Costanza: The most rewarding part by far is having had an active role in the tremendous progression of Frontiers in just four years of existence. It definitely makes me want to be part of the team continuing to move this forward, although it’s been hard to get to this point: unlike us, many scientists did not initially feel the need for an innovative publisher such as Frontiers. But I consider myself very lucky to have joined at such an early stage.

OPN: What is your perspective on open-access journals and their place in scientific publishing?

Costanza: I am more and more convinced that an online open-access distribution model, with an emphasis on social media, is very much where scientific publishing is headed. There are still many avenues to explore regarding the related business models, so there is space for everyone to come up with new paradigm-shifting initiatives. We are witnessing a revolution in scientific publishing.

 

Career Path, Communication Skills, Nontraditional Science Careers, Publishing , , ,

Peer Review 101: Building your Reputation as a Journal Reviewer

8. April 2012

by Carlos López-Mariscal and Julio Gutierrez-Vega

As a young scientist, when you publish your first papers in prestigious peer-reviewed journals, you announce your presence to the scientific community. In this way, you are in the process of becoming a recognized expert of your field. Eventually, you will also receive requests from journal editors to review manuscripts submitted by other scientists. These invitations are both a privilege and a responsibility.

Taking part in the review process is critical to developing a scientific career. It helps you build relationships with journal editors; it improves your critical thinking abilities; it gives you a better understanding of the state of the art in your field; and it enhances your writing skills so you can better present your scientific ideas. In addition, good reviewing is recognized and rewarded by colleagues and scientific societies.

As you start reviewing others’ work, the fundamental principle to keep in mind is the notion of reciprocity. Follow this golden rule: You should review a manuscript in the same way that you would want your manuscript to be reviewed. Here are some other best practices to keep in mind:

Respond promptly to requests. This is quite important—whether or not you accept the invitation to review. One of the worst things you could do is ignore a request for review, along with accepting it and then not honoring the request. If you are unable or unwilling to accept, it only takes a couple of minutes to notify the editor of your decision. The editor will appreciate it if you can suggest other potential reviewers.

Complete the review on time. This point is crucial to guarantee the timeline of the journal. It is unfair to authors (and editors) to be delayed by tardy reviewers. If you need extra time, contact the editor as soon as you can. Most are flexible and will agree to give you additional time in exchange for a good review.

Do not review a manuscript whose topic is unfamiliar to you. Stick to topics that you know well in order for your reviews to be the most credible and useful.

Enumerate your comments and suggestions. Again, think about how you would want someone to review your own paper. Organize your thoughts in a way that will be easy for someone to absorb and follow up on.

Read the journal’s review criteria. Make sure you spend time on the journal and/or publisher’s website so you understand what is expected of both authors and reviewers. This will help to ensure that your review is aligned with the publisher’s expectations.

Be specific. Indicate as precisely as you can what the problems are and how they may be overcome.

Focus on the science.Avoid effortless reviews that comment only on minor grammatical errors, typos or language problems. However, if a manuscript is written in language so poor that it is difficult to understand, point this out to the editor.

Follow up. If you are reviewing a revised manuscript, make sure the authors actually made the appropriate changes in the manuscript as recommended in the first review.

Be discreet and complete. Always maintain confidentiality and notify editors of any potential conflict of interest or suspicions of plagiarism that you may have.

If you are interested in reviewing, let your academic advisor know. He or she probably gets requests regularly and will be grateful for your initiative. You can also contact the topical editors of the journals you have published in—or introduce yourself to them at a conference. Researchers are often invited to review manuscripts as a direct result of their own published work.

Good reviewers are not as easy to come across as you might think, so don’t be shy. Take the initiative and get involved.

Carlos López-Mariscal and Julio Gutierrez-Vega are both experienced reviewers and members of the Optics & Photonics News Editorial Advisory Committee. Gutierrez-Vega is also an associate editor for OSA’s peer-reviewed open-access journal Optics Express.  

Career Path, Publishing , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Advice to a Self-Plagiarist

2. September 2011

By Pablo Artal, OSA Fellow

OSA Fellow Pablo Artal has kindly allowed OPN’s Bright Futures career blog to republish content from his own popular blog, in which he fields questions from students, colleagues and other researchers on science, society and managing a career in optics.

Dear professor, I am a Ph.D. student who would like to have as many published papers as possible. I do not care if I repeat or manipulate something. I am not worried about what some old guys feel is or is not ethical; it is easy to talk about ethics when your salary is good and secure forever. This is my research; if I can have 7 papers, that would be better than 5. Can you help me to maximize the number of my published papers? I am prepared to do a lot of extra work on data and camouflage writing. –Name withheld.  

This is a bizarre question I received some time ago. My first reaction was that it must be a joke. My second reaction was that this person was stupid to talk so openly about taking actions that are so clearly unethical. Then I basically forgot about it until I recently became involved in several real cases involving OSA journals, in which some young (and sometimes not-so-young) authors were purposefully trying to act in the way described in the question. So I decided to devote this post to the complex problem of self-plagiarism.

I already dedicated a post some time ago to the topic of plagiarism. Mostly everyone recognizes that as an unethical practice that should be punished. However, the situation of self-plagiarism is not so clear. Many people do not even consider the publication of duplicative manuscripts—which is sometimes referred to as “salami” publications (I prefer “chorizo slices”)—to be bad behavior, arguing that they can do what they want with their results. They may also rationalize that duplicative publication helps disseminate their results to different communities.

But the bigger picture is that self-plagiarism impedes scientific progress by flooding the system with weak and redundant information. It can also hurt your career. Sure, it seems to benefit you if you merely count the number of papers you’ve published. But whenever someone assesses your body of work more closely, they will notice the redundancy. The proof of your fault will be there forever! Some other points for the self-plagiarist to remember:

Beware of anti-plagiarism software. Although every scientific journal faces this problem in one way or another, not many openly address it. So I liked it when I recently read an editorial in the journal Anaesthesia in which the editor recognized that the editorial team had detected an increased number of duplicate submissions. He was not sure if this was by chance or simply because the journal (like many others, including OSA journals) had recently started to use a software called Cross Check.

When Cross Check or similar software becomes the norm, life will become more complicated for folks such as my correspondent. Still, a refined self-plagiarist is typically not so naïve that he or she will simply copy and paste parts of an existing paper into other multiple ones. A clever person will do something more sophisticated.

For example, rather than exactly replicating text or figures, he or she will write a different introduction that expresses the same basic ideas, or include one paper with more details on methodology and another with more mathematical descriptions. He or she will also be careful to make minor adjustments to the titles and names of sections. For example:

Title paper 1: Facial tissues: A study on relative comfort
Title paper 2: Subjects’ responses on soft paper in contact to facial skin

If you know an area well, you can write lots of different titles while evading automatic software detectors.

Even if you bypass software, you will not be safe from your colleagues. At least one reviewer is likely to notice similarities among duplicative manuscripts. The same reviewer could receive your manuscripts from different journals nearly simultaneously, for example. And playing with submission times won’t necessarily work, since it is possible that the reviewer will remember. This has happened to me several times, and it is a joy for reviewers to say to the editor: Here you have a clearly duplicated paper. We all love that! Most editors will follow the reviewer's advice in these cases.

Mind your supervisor. For graduate students and post-docs, your supervisor’s role is to ensure that the papers you submit are all truly independent, so he or she should be monitoring your submissions. If you were to submit a duplicative article that included the names of the supervisor and others without telling them, your colleagues would likely find out very quickly, since most journals inform all the authors on the submission quickly. It is nevertheless possible that, in some cases, a supervisor will not contact the journal and agree to the submission, possibly to avoid other problems. If, on the other hand, you choose to submit a paper in your name alone and you are caught, you will embark on a solitary and difficult adventure.

Quality is better than quantity. Another common practice—which is not technically unethical but is inadvisable—is to publish papers showing countless minor variations on addressing a problem. In other words, you produce different results that are of just enough interest to merit another paper in a not-very-good but peer-reviewed publication. It may feel great to rack up the publications, but remember that, in the long run, your career will be judged more on the impact of your research (citations, invited talks…) than on the actual amount of what you produced.

Be a refined scientist instead of a refined self-plagiarist. So, dear friend… I believe you have the full capability to become a refined self-plagiarist; I have now told you all the ways that you can multiply your results. But my real advice is: Use your skills to produce a few good, solid papers. And instead of applying your cleverness to duplicating your work in many publications, use it to do original and interesting research.

Pablo Artal (Pablo@um.es) is an OSA Fellow and professor of optics at the University of Murcia, Spain. He is an optical and vision scientist with an interest in visual optics, optical instrumentation, adaptive optics, and biomedical optics and photonics.

 

Academic Careers, Career Path, Communication Skills, Graduate School, Publishing , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Communication Skills for Researchers

17. May 2011

By Jean-Luc Doumont

The time when an introverted scientist could happily hide in his or her lab with guaranteed funding for several decades is long gone. Nowadays, researchers spend a large share of their work time fighting for funding, managing people or departments, reaching out to society, and interacting with policymakers. Add global mobility to the equation and you understand how survival-critical it is to get the attention of an audience, to get messages across to them, and eventually to prompt them to action—possibly in what is not your native language or native culture.

The good news is, you can learn to communicate better at any point of your career path.

If you are a young researcher…
Look for opportunities to enroll in a training program—not (or not just) one focused on language, but one that discusses strategy and structure. Learn what to include—and what not to include—in an oral presentation or journal article, and in what order to include it (and why). Learn how to design an effective graph or slide.

If you hate speaking in front of an audience…
Grab every unimportant opportunity to do it: group meetings, student events, birthday parties and so on. We all learn by mistakes; if you avoid speaking in public until your first big meeting presentation, you will make all of your beginner’s mistakes when the stakes are highest. Similarly, avoid postponing the writing you have to do. Start early. For example, write the introduction to your paper or thesis well before you finish the research. Foresee time for iterations, too: Much of the learning stems from feedback and revisions.

If you are a senior professional…
Question your communication practices. Ask yourself how you learned to do what you do. Was it merely by imitating others or was it through searching for what works and what does not? Look for opportunities to learn further. If you no longer have the time (or the humility) to enroll in a full-fledged training program, at least read about how to communicate well or attend short sessions on the topic.

Above all, ask for—and listen to—feedback from your audiences. Ask specific questions, too. If you merely ask colleagues whether they liked your talk, they will likely give you a polite but possibly insincere yes, an answer from which you will not learn.

No matter how experienced you are…
You can keep learning forever by being highly critical of every presentation you attend, every document you read and every poster you look at. Effective communication is all about the audience; your intuition as a member of that audience is therefore a much better guide than the preconceived ideas you may have as a speaker or writer. You may find it hard, however, to learn from good examples: a brilliant piece of scientific or technical communication will have all of your attention on the content, with none left to notice what, exactly, has made the communication so effective (unless perhaps in retrospect).

Examples of what not to do are easier to analyze. Each time you get frustrated by a presentation or document, ask yourself why. What, specifically, did the speaker or author do that prevented you from understanding or that otherwise distracted you? Is a certain piece of information missing? Is the vocabulary inappropriate? Is the structure unclear? Is anything drawing attention onto itself rather than on the content?

Then think about what would be a more effective approach. You may contemplate whether to share part or all of this feedback with the speaker or author and thus help him or her to learn from it, too. But at least for yourself, let nothing pass: develop zero-tolerance for poor communication.

This post is excerpted from a longer article on the same topic, which will appear in the June 2011 Optics & Photonics News.

Jean-luc Doumont (jl@principiae.be) holds a Ph.D. in applied physics from Stanford University. He now devotes his time and energy to training researchers and others in effective communication. He is a traveling lecturer for OSA.

 

Academic Careers, Career Path, Graduate School, Job Search, Publishing, Communication Skills , , , , , , , , , ,

Peer Review and You: How to Bounce Back from Rejection

15. September 2010

By Pablo Artal, OSA Fellow

OSA Fellow Pablo Artal has kindly allowed OPN’s Bright Futures career blog to republish content from his popular blog Optics Confidential. In his blog, Artal fields questions from students, colleagues and other researchers on science, society and managing a career in optics. For more advice on mastering the peer review process, see our related post on Peer Review 101.

Dear Prof. Artal: I am a postdoc working in physics in an eastern European country. I published several articles in high-impact journals during my Ph.D. thesis. However, the first article I submitted from my new research was rejected. I am disappointed since I believe the research was good (in fact the best I ever did). Moreover, the reasons for the rejection were not convincing. I feel very depressed and I am even thinking about quitting my research career. What can I do? Alexander, Kiev, Ukraine.

Research papers, together with conference presentations, are the major outputs in research activities. No research is actually complete until it is published and accessible to the whole scientific community. In addition, careers, grants, reputation and promotions depend on the number and quality of the publications… so if a paper is rejected, it can feel really miserable.

But perhaps Alexander would be relieved to know that every scientist had some rejected papers in his or her career. So, first of all, this is not the end, but actually something quite normal. You can be even more relieved to know that there are well-known and important discoveries that were initially rejected! Relax.

I am in a good position to address Alexander’s question. First, I am a scientist with long experience collaborating with editors and reviewers on my own work. I also serve as editor for two international journals, so I have had to deal with other scientists and, yes, sometimes I must reject their papers.

You need to recognize honestly the importance of your research. This is something you can learn from your mentors, and do not be shy about asking your colleagues. In many cases, reviewers and editors are right; perhaps you overestimated your own research. If this is the case, ask for advice and recognize the situation. Plan more experiments, rewrite the paper or add a new model to complete the paper.

In most high-quality journals, you will receive at least two reviews, and most likely you will be asked to revise the manuscript. It is also common in some journals to have a direct rejection based on the large number of manuscript they receive. This argument is quite subjective and difficult to change, so if this is the case of your rejected paper, perhaps the best option is simply to resubmit it to another journal.

If you firmly believe the reviews were incorrect, write the editor an appeal letter. In it, you need to demonstrate point by point every detail of the review that you contest. If you are right, the editor should reconsider the decision and eventually your paper may be sent to different reviewers.

It is true, however, that in some cases the communication with journals may be quite frustrating for the authors. I can share with you a recent (and bad!) experience that I had. We prepared a manuscript on a topic I believe was quite novel and that provided interesting results with potential applications. The paper was sent to one of the top journals in ophthalmology. We were asked to revise the manuscript on three occasions with very detailed description of every minor change.

After a year and a half of making painstaking revisions, I received a letter from the editor telling me that the paper was rejected because the priority of the paper was low for the journal! You can imagine my reaction. I felt as bad as you may be feeling now. This is in my opinion an example of a bad editorial behavior. If a rejection is to be made on subjective criteria such as space and priority, it should be done as soon as possible.

Address every comment. Of course, it may happen that a paper is rejected after a revision if the authors are not able to address the reviewer’s comments. One typical mistake from some authors is to perform no revisions or only very minor ones, ignoring important comments from reviewers. You should always take very seriously any revision requests, and apply the same level of dedication or even more than in the initial preparation of the paper. Prepare a letter where every change and every argument is clearly listed. You do need to address every comment in some way; if you elect not to make a change, state the reason why. Most papers are greatly improved by the revision process, so take advantage of that.

It’s not always about the science. What can be even most frustrating is when rejections are based on the order in which competing research is submitted to a journal. Several years ago, in a study performed during one of my former student’s Ph.D. thesis, we measured the change with age of the aberrations of the cornea. We showed that corneal aberrations increase slightly with age, and that the lens exhibits a more significant change. We reported this first in a conference, but another group followed our idea very quickly, replicated the study and submitted a paper before that we did. A few months later, our work was rejected because the journal already had a similar paper on the topic. This happens sometimes, and it feels bad when it does. In any case, our study was finally published in another
excellent journal and has been widely used and cited since then.

Don’t be too anxious concerning papers. In particular, try to be calm when addressing reviewers and editors. Be firm, but not aggressive. Hopefully the research will be finally published, but if not, it won’t be the first time.  Every scientist could tell you a similar story about their own rejected manuscripts.

Pablo Artal (Pablo@um.es) is an OSA Fellow and professor of optics at the University of Murcia, Spain. He is an optical and vision scientist with an interest in visual optics, optical instrumentation, adaptive optics, and biomedical optics and photonics.

Career Path, Publishing , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,