I just got an email to say that a paper I submitted to a journal has been rejected. I haven't brought myself to read the full comments from the reviewer yet - got as far as "conceptual weaknesses" and "unclear methodology" and closed the email to avoid getting upset - I'm going to the office Christmas party in an hour.

I've emailed the guy in charge of putting the special issue together to let him know but can't face telling my supervisor yet. We don't have a fantastic relationship at the moment and I feel he'll be pleased that I've had a setback (seriously, he's not the nicest guy).

Some kind words would be much appreciated :-)

Sorry to hear that - please accept much sympathy and an imaginary teddy bear to cheer you up :-) Please don't be too sad *hugs*

Thank you!! I'm not normally one to take things like this personally but I'm feeling pretty wobbly about the whole thesis at the moment and it would have been nice to have a publication accepted as some kind of objective proof that I do actually have decent ideas now and again.

Bah!

hey - hang in there, publishing is tough and 'one rejection does not a bad thesis make!' Honestly, don't think of it as rejection and certainly do not take it personally! it really is not personal, just take some time out and when you feel ready read through the comments and tackle them bit by bit. It is great practice for the viva... plus, look on the brightside, at least you have data and are submitting work - a lot of students don't even get that far!

xx HAve fun at the xmas party! -don't get too drunk ;-)

This has happened to me twice in a row - I am waiting for a third rejection at the moment! To say my confidence is torn apart would be an understatement. I know how you feel - can I share some of your sympathy?

All I can add is: treat academia like the acting profession, there will be lots and lots of rejections and they're not to be taken personally.

Thank you all so much, this forum is really cheering me up at the moment :-)

I sat down with my husband last night and read the criticisms together so as to soften the blow a bit. It turns out that the reviewer's main issue was the fact that the paper wasn't 'conceptual' enough and that I didn't define the word 'governance' at the start... all in all the criticisms were a bit strange because it ended by saying that the paper had 'a lot of potential' and 'would be of interest to the journal's audience'...ho hum. After reading the comments I think even if they had been generous enough to accept it with major revisions I wouldn't have done them because it was never meant to be a conceptual article in the way the reviewer wants.

Drwhoknows - I feel your pain. Good luck with future submissions.

You seem to be feeling a lot better today that's great news for a start.

Reading through the comments with your husband was a good idea, and all in all when you put them across they don't seem that bad at all.

So all I have to say is well done, and again to remember never to take things personally (a thing I struggle with too).

Having edited a journal I can honestly say that peer-reviews are so hit and miss. I've had three reviews on one article, one praising it as the mother of all articles, one saying it was weak in style but strong in content and the third rejecting it as utter tripe!! Its such a subjective thing and although reviewers should be detached and professional some of them, particularly ones who are new to it, just don't.
So don't be too hard on yourself, take from the comments that which you find useful and chalk it up to experience.
xxxxxx

Hey Heifer: I'm sure you're feeling a bit better now, but I still wanted to add my experience. I got my second article rejection a couple of months ago and did the same thing and closed it without reading it properly. Last week I got an email from the journal's new editor, saying they'd like me to rewrite and resubmit it. I'd either read it wrong, or they'd changed their minds, but I'm not saying no to another publication!

Now I've got two articles on the go (one provisionally accepted on the basis of an abstract, and this one in resubmission): Huzzah! I definitely think the abstract route is much nicer, because it stops us wasting time on stuff they'd never be interested in because of the methodology or topic.

Re your subervisor: I probably wouldn't tell him/her unless he/she asks, and then just act breezy and un-hurt about it.

Did your supervisor give you a clear publishing strategy? At the mo mine is

Submit to a really high impact factor journal, with slight hope it may get accepted, but mostly just to get useful comments, then submit to lower and lower impact factor journals, depending on how often it gets rejected lol. (obviously making changes along the way as suggested).

I know other people prefer to work from low impact factor to high, but you need a clear strategy!

Interesting....and when did you work out a strategy? I mean by when? Also what field are you in, soc sci or humanities or science? and how many do you plan to have by the time you're done?

Do you mean me or OP? If me, I was kind of mentored for my first publication which was my Masters dissertation, so I learnt from the co-author how they approached it. I am in social sciences. Hope to publish as much as possible lol. At least one paper would be nice, but three if possible!

hey sneaks, thanks, yes it was for you. So you published your Masters work, which I presume was co authored with sup? And when did you submit your first piece, lets say an invited review perhaps? Or an article from pilot fieldwork?

hey sneaks, thanks, yes it was for you. So you published your Masters work, which I presume was co authored with sup? And when did you submit your first piece, lets say an invited review perhaps? Or an article from pilot fieldwork?