Becoming anxious since my paper was submitted to journals

[Haorong Wu]

I am increasingly anxious since my first paper was submitted to journals and it has been rejected three times directly by editors. Although my advisor thinks it is an interesting work and keeps submitting it to high-quality journals, I am not very confident in myself. I am always worried that what if the paper does not have enough novelties, impacts, or interests? Will the editors or the referees say, what a piece of rubbish, the time they read my paper?

The paper was submitted to PRD now. I am checking the status every day and it always reads, Review request to referee; response not yet received or message received (not a report). The anxiety is still increasing.

So do you feel the same after your first paper was submitted?

 

[jedishrfu]

Sometimes its tough to get published but trust in your advisor who likely has succeeded in getting papers published. Many great works of fiction have been rejected and then finally discovered.

The Lord of the Rings was one such work. Another is A River Runs Through It by Norman Maclean. He was rejected by several commercial publishing houses until his university, the University of Chicago decided to publish it even though it was outside the topics of books they usually publish.

https://www.openculture.com/2021/09...committee-rejected-the-lord-of-the-rings.html

https://writingforaliving.us/the-mo...ction-of-famous-books-rejected-by-publishers/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/norma...and-how-a-river-runs-through-it-got-published

and here's a list of some great scientific papers that were rejected:

https://www.sciencealert.com/these-8-papers-were-rejected-before-going-on-to-win-the-nobel-prize

 

[Choppy]

I get it. Putting your work out there for peer review can be stressful, particularly the first time.

Generally I would agree you should trust in your supervisor. That said, if something has been rejected three times without revision, it's probably time to change something about it. Review the feedback you've been getting with your supervisor and address the concerns.

One of the best ways to deal with a paper that's under review is simply to work on the next one.

 

[fresh_42]

I am increasingly anxious since my first paper was submitted to journals and it has been rejected three times directly by editors.

You assume that this has to do with your paper. This is not necessarily the case. Some other possibilities are:

• [Editor] I have no reviewer for this at the moment.
• [Editor] I have a reviewer but I cannot ask him again for a while.
• [Editor] These formulas look like a lot of work to do in order to check them. Shall someone else do that.
• [Editor] I have asked all my reviewers and all said they had currently no time.
• [Editor] Doesn't fit in our journal.
• [Editor] No co-authors.
• [Editor] No known co-authors.
• [Editor] The list of references is too short. It's suspicious.
• [Editor] The list of references is too long. It's suspicious.

I cannot say whether these thoughts really occurred, but it is possible. It is natural that you view this from your own, sorry, narrow, perspective. The editors do the same from theirs.

 

[Haorong Wu]

Thanks, guys. Well, the PRL editors said my paper does not meet the criteria of impact, innovation, and interest, and they suggest that it is more suitable for a specialized journal. My supervisor did not tell me the details in decisions from nature physics and pnas, He just told me that they have rejected the paper.

I am working on my third paper now. It does help relax the stress.

Well, I think it is better for starters to submit their first paper to a Q2 or Q3 journal, so it is easier to be accepted and we can build confidence in ourselves. However, I have no such choice. It is up to my supervisor. finger still crossed.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Well, the PRL editors said my paper does not meet the criteria of impact, innovation, and interest, and they suggest that it is more suitable for a specialized journal. My supervisor did not tell me the details in decisions from nature physics and pnas, He just told me that they have rejected the paper.

Those three journals have similar requirements for impact/innovation/interest (i.e., very high), so it’s not surprising that a paper rejected from one would be rejected from all three.

Well, I think it is better for starters to submit their first paper to a Q2 or Q3 journal, so it is easier to be accepted and we can build confidence in ourselves. However, I have no such choice. It is up to my supervisor. finger still crossed.

Ideally, a paper should be placed in the journal where the people who need to see it will see it. I’m assuming by Q2-3 you’re referring to the Scimago quartiles. Please note that there are very specialized journals with relatively low impact that are still Q1–and well-respected in their fields. I don’t know exactly how Scimago works, but I get the impression that Q2, and especially Q3 journals, have problems that go beyond simply being low-impact.

There’s a more important point to be made here, though. If you’re going to pursue research science, you’re going to need to get used to rejection. From reviewers, editors, funding agencies, employers, and even employees and students who decide they are a better fit working for someone else. As a researcher, I can attest that I face far more rejections than not. This is an issue that a lot of younger scientists are often caught unprepared for: they’ve typically done quite well in school and university, and have not experienced much in the way of failure until they start doing PhD level research. It’s not for everyone. At some point, you will need to decide if the relatively small proportion of successes will outweigh the large proportion of failures that you are likely to encounter as a scientist. This will be the biggest factor in determining whether you continue as a researcher or find another way to employ your talents.

 

[hutchphd]

At some point, you will need to decide if the relatively small proportion of successes will outweigh the large proportion of failures that you are likely to encounter as a scientist.

Your attitude towards this process of endless evaluation will be crucial in both your ongoing happiness and therefore ultimate success. So consider this process and your controlled reaction to it to be an important part of your education!

 

[jrmichler]

Don't feel bad. One of my papers was rejected twice. It was revised after the first rejection, sent to a second journal, rejected again, revised again, then accepted subject to some minor revisions. It's part of the life.

MTA: And it was my most recent paper, published December 2021.

 

[mathwonk]

I am writing from a mathematician's perspective. In my experience there are two groups of people who will evaluate you based on your publications:
1) people qualified to read and understand your paper, and who do so;
2) people either unqualified to read it or who do not take the time.

The first group will evaluate the paper based on its content and quality, and will presumably include your peers (or seniors) in your area. They will appreciate the paper for its quality regardless of the journal it appears in, as long as it does appear somewhere.

The second group will do so based on the reputation of the journal, rather than the paper itself, but unfortunately may include some people responsible for hiring or promoting you, but who do not actually understand your work.

Ultimately the first group's opinion matters most, so be sure to get the paper out there where they can read it, and perhaps even send it to them personally, or have your advisor do so. You seem to be young, and rest assured this problem has affected most people near the beginning of their careers. You are to be complemented for having apparently produced work your advisor thinks suitable to excellent journals.

I hope these comments from my experience are relevant to yours.