Modifying your papers to get them published can be a pain.
Yes, revisions is very important.
It helps you to cover all your weaknesses and make your arguments water tight. However, I can't help but feeling the pain when a paper is returned with more revisions and queries. It is like someone is telling me my baby is ugly and needs cosmetic surgery. Or worse, my baby has defects and need to be operated one before it will be able to see the world. Fine. What could a mother do? I will just modify, and answer all the queries as requested. Full stop.
What are the revisions that are reasonable and what are not?
Sometimes I wonder how much time a reviewer actually spend on reviewing a paper. When they come across something unfamiliar to them (although they are experts, science grows so fast that it is not possible for everyone to know everything), do they dismiss it or do they read up about it. Are there are stages in one's academic life whereby you would say, "If I do not know, it does not exist" ?
Critisims are welcomed, if they are well thought out and constructive. However, they frusfration sets in reviewers defer greatly in their opinion, and each worded their "suggestion" strongly. Worse still are the occasions where you get the hunch that this guy is not that updated. He does not know the area well.
Whatever your misgivings are about this whole publication game, you just got to soldier on. Yeah, that is what I keep on reminding myself. This is a whole learning process. Whatever it is, it is still alot milder and more "genteel" that certain bosses are at work.
No comments:
Post a Comment