Am I crazy ? - a paper rejected despite the good reviews (Jul/08/2008 )

This is my first post on this forum. So far I have been just reading and have found many useful things here. So, I hope you can give me your opinion / advice on this:

I have submitted my paper to a journal with quite a high IF. The reviewers comments were good (an example: The manuscript is well presented and makes interesting reading. The study is well done and the data analysis adequate...), but the editor decided to reject the paper because it didn t have high enough priority score (what exactly does that mean and how it is assigned?). My boss says this happened because we didin t have any famous names on the otherwise good paper and that in high IF journals that is the only way to get accepted. I am really dissapointed and sort of sad. I mean, if it is true what she says - this is really terrible - this is not how it should be in science. What is the point of doing good science if good journals (or are they really good?) are the closed clubs of friends who publish each others work.

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy? Or am I the one who is crazy ?

Thanks for reading this

Nanna

Sadly, much of science is who you know, not necessarily the work that was done. Connections are everything and that's why networking is so important, especially in this field.

hi nanna,
sorry to hear about your paper. it's true what you say about being in a club or having an important name in your paper. i don't think anything could make you feel better right not, but try to look from a different perspective, let's suppose you're an editor in a very important journal, it is your job to accept papers that will be referenced in other papers and that way maintain or even better, increase the impact factor of the journal you're working for. it is a really difficult decision to make whether you put a paper that might not be cited a lot because the authors are not known yet. don't feel discouraged, you're not crazy. and good luck with the publication of your work. i know there are some very good editors who like to publish novel things and give a try to new researchers. just keep trying!

I think the quality of the paper should always be taken into consideration before its author's name.. Crap gets published in Nature and some really good papers are published in low IF journals (not often, but still). Authorship should not be considered as a factor for acceptation... But yes, high IF journals tend to work that way, publishing big names rather than big articles.

Regarding your case, you should check if the editor is working in your field. Our lab's paper have been rejected only because the editor was working in the same area.. And not only were the paper refused, but the editor's paper got published shortly after, with our ideas and conclusions.

I agree when you say science should not be that way. But sadly, it is.

That said, do not let discouragement take you over. Submit your paper to journals with either smaller or higher IF. You never know!

For high IF journals the reviewers comments have to be more than good. The comment "data analysis adequate" is a nice way to not discourage you. Send it to a lesser journal and get it published. It will look good on your CV. Or, if you are convinced that it is groundbreaking work, find an Academy member that will submitted to PNAS for you. It will still get reviewed (these days), but at least you will have a club member's support.

First, with regard to your question, "Am I crazy?" umm... i'm probably the wrong person to ask...

With regard to your situation, I hate to say what you experienced IS the way it is in the scientific community...

If you get a chance take a look at:

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn

It speaks of how science makes progress... I'm going to give a VERY watered down summary...

- Scientific community has a commonly accepted understanding
New/younger scientists have difficulty finding a niche

- VOILA! A new scientist makes a discovery which goes against commonly accepted theories. It is
rejected by those who are considered 'authorities'...

- New scientists looking for a niche investigate the new finding and gather even more data

- Momentum builds until the new theory is accepted and the discoverer and those who supported him are now the authorities...


Isaac Newtow is a good example... He was rejected at first. His theories and what not... Of course then he became the mac-daddy of science and the head of the Royal Society of science and became a tyrant... he shut down anything that did not give with what HE believed...

Here are two quotes from Max Planck:

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

I know your pain... it sucks big time... This is good reason that younger scientists need to support each other.

something very funny that happens with all these big journals and big PIs names is when they contradict their own previous paper, e.g.:

1. methylation is always acting as a silencing mechanism by affecting promoters,
2. methylation is also found in the body of the genes, not only in the promoters,
3. methylation might be regulating positively gene expression (where is the repression left?)

just to mention one...