Okay, just need to vent for a moment. I just made my first phone call to an associate editor of a scientific journal to discuss some unreasonable comments/demands on my latest paper. Get this, the AE only sent it to two reviewers. One came back loving the paper the other hating it and requesting two, yes two, additional studies. Not just simple studies either double blind cross over studies. So I called to get the AE's opinion on sending it to a third reviewer (very unlike me because I don't really like confrontation). He first off doesn't believe that it is Dr. H. on the phone. Apparently I need to sound more like an older-than-dirt physiologist who speaks like Walter Cronkite and secondly be pompous enough to answer the phone, "Dr. H.". Then he is standing behind review #2 and is not optimistic about my chance of fighting this one.
So, I'm pulling my science from this journal!
My lessons of the day 1) it is okay to call the AE, 2) we all have different opinions about science and 3) know when to fight and when to give in, and 4) if I'm being assertive it doesn't mean that I'm a b%tc#.
5 comments:
good lessons. glad you tried to get yourself heard. sorry you have to resubmit elsewhere!
Reviewer #2 should pick a journal... any journal. Then, that reviewer should read a random article from said journal... any article. Guarantee that in said article, the discussion would go something like this: "we found this, however, we found no evidence of this. We feel these results are explained by such and such, which is supported by the work of whoever-the-hell. One striking finding in our protocol was bla-bla, which was opposite of our expected result". NOW HERE'S THE PUNCH-LINE, SO BE READY FOR IT: "Further study is needed to clarify whether "bla-bla" is the result of "this" or "that" or possible a non-specific effect of "whatever" on "something".
Bottom line: sometimes further studies are warranted, and not every published study is expected to "close the door" on an area of research. Some of the most exciting studies I've seen published are those that stimulate further questions for research, rather than outlining areas where little remains to be elucidated.
Bottomest line: this is why we should hate everybody.
You said it buddy! Can I request you to review this paper when I re-submit it tomorrow?
Thanks for making me feel better! :)
Indeed, G-man. Further studies are always needed, i.e. why we have jobs. I hate when reviewers think that every article should be the LAST article ever published on a topic, very closed minded. I fought one of these once, with some of our best work, and I know who the moron was that rejected mine and she did it because she had just received a huge grant with a hypothesis that opposed our findings. Anyway, they sent it to a third, after we fought it, who liked our paper, and it was still rejected. Someday we will have a party when the dinosaurs of our field are gone! E
The question now becomes, how can we get rid of the dinosaurs sooner? These bastards, and FYI they are very rude on the phone!
Post a Comment