I wasn't sure of the best place to raise this, but here seemed as good as any even if I don't now technically fit into the target audience!

I completed my PhD at the start of the year, successfully defended and I've even now graduated - simply put, it's over. But I submitted a spin-out paper to the top journal in my field, which after the review process was rejected. Now rejection is not altogether uncommon, but what's bugging me is that the comments made suggestions that I can't help but feel should have been in my thesis in the first place - in other words, if this reviewer had been my external examiner, I might well have ended up with major corrections.

Am I over-thinking things? Am I wrong to essentially be doubting the validity of my PhD because it could perhaps have been better? Are top (we're talking 4*) journal standards higher than PhD viva standards?

I sense this is very much "first world problems", in that I'm through the process and out the other end as Dr spiderpig. But any thoughts are most welcome!

The standards of top journals are much higher than PhD ones. If they were not, why would many people with PhDs never actually get an article accepted in a top journal but enjoy perfectly adequate academic careers? Don't fret about it, just take on board any reviewers' comments, revise and submit to an appropriate second tier journal. No-one's PhD thesis is perfect - yours was good enough! And maybe this reviewer has given you a point that you can build on in the revised article.
It might be helpful to think of the PhD as an apprenticeship. You've now got the certificate to say you're fit to do independent research but you're not suddenly going to be the best in your field. You have the time to mature and do better research. If you think of the greats in your field - how many are famous for their PhD thesis? In my field, I can't think of a single one. But what you really must not do, is lose your confidence over one rejection. We all get them, sometimes they are brutal, but the key point is to lick your wounds, curse the reviewers and then move on.

Hi Spiderpig,

I agree with bewildered, journals do have higher standards, otherwise all PhD students would publish in top ranking journals which is not the case. I also submitted a paper earlier in the summer, and one reviewer suggested rejection. My confidence was at floor level, as I am supposed to finish in a few months time! At the end I had to do heavy revision on the paper. Overall, it was a positive experience as 1) my supervisor was convinced that we should use more elaborate statistical analysis 2) the comments made the paper stronger. So... revise and resubmit! It is a steep learning curve :)

The reviewer of my paper was my external examiner.

I had minor corrections from this professor who was my examiner.
But he recommended major corrections when he became the reviewer.
Anyway, he is an Editor of the Journal; so it is his role to maintain or improve the quality of paper published.

Thanks everyone.

I think I'm still in the post-PhD "can't quite believe it" frame of mind. I don't think things were helped by a couple of friends finishing off their theses and one of them being quite a bit longer, almost making me feel that what I produced was overall poor.

I need to just keep telling myself that 1) it was about quality not quantity and 2) the quality was enough to be passed by two senior academics, one of which is arguably the biggest name in my intersection of fields.

This is very interesting, I'm just writing up but already had articles accepted in decent journals (not sure what counts as "top" journals) and I would have assumed that the examiners set quite a high bar. Unwise to assume anything else probably, as complacency might make you fail even the lower standard!

Whatever your field would consider a 4* output in REF terms, I think = a top journal. In my field that equates to about a 5% acceptance rate with the vast majority of submissions being desk rejected by the editorial board.

I didn't think REF graded journals?

Officially no. In reality the lists of what journals are best are what faculty heads are using to decide who is and isn't entered. If you're not looking like a good bet for 3* or better average, then anywhere research intensive you are probably not being submitted. It's problematic for all the reasons given in this blogpost and more: http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/journal-impact-factors-and-ref-2014.html[url]
But it's what universities are doing - hence why many academics are more stressed about the internal selection procedure than they are about the actual REF.