Rejection is a tough part of every academic life.
This past week, I received a text message from a junior colleague, an email from a colleague, & an editorial report from a senior colleague - all detailing a different paper rejection.
Each colleague expressed sadness, pain, & worry - about earning tenure, maintaining productivity, or wondering who they had offended.
Each contact made me think of my advisor- who counseled after my first rejection - in a very matter-of-fact way - that I should get used to bad news - this was part of the business.
I recall thinking, after re-reading the reviews, what business have I gotten into? That people are so casually mean?
I resolved to toughen up.
Over twenty years later, I'm still not tough. Every rejection brings some sadness, some pain, & some worry.
And yet.
While rejections bring pain, I have learned they also create opportunities.
Each decision letter includes tips that help me improve as a writer & a scholar. Each decision letter also teaches me better or worse ways to share feedback with authors.
So lessons learned from rejected papers.
First, triangulate across reviews & review packages.
When I read review packages, I look for comments on:
1. Clarity. Most rejections result from a failure to explain arguments, contributions, or limitations clearly.
2. Errors. Small mistakes cast doubt on the credibility of the whole paper.
3. Methods. These tell me if I've missed something or a new approach to analysis has surfaced.
When I stepped back & looked for patterns in reviews, I became better at identifying problems in how I tell stories & correcting them in my future work.
Second, reviewers tend to point to similar issues that often have little to do with the quality of your work.
When I read review packages, I remind myself that every decision letter expresses concern about:
1. Motivation. Complaints about a paper's motivation are normal.
2. Data & analysis. Accept that someone will find fault with your method.
3. The premise. One reviewer, maybe more, will tell you the topic has already been studied.
When I realized these concerns appear in every decision letter, I found reading reviews to be a lot less traumatic.
Third, decision letters are not meant to make you angry.
When I read editors' comments, I am now aware that they:
1. Lack control. No matter what they do, editors receive bad reviews.
2. Have limited time. So adverse decisions tend to be short.
3. Are volunteers. Few journals pay editors.
When I realized editors process tough reviews on tight timelines as volunteers, forgiving minor errors was easier & I could see that editor's bigger point – the paper wasn't ready – was often on-point.
When I learned these lessons, coping with (& avoiding) rejection became simpler. While I'll never like negative feedback, I now recognize it represents an opportunity for improving my work.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-thatcher-0329764_mentoring-publication-peerreview-activity-6891861682147196928-hjiO?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web
Comments