Timeline for Should I inform my potential advisor that my paper got rejected?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2017 at 17:28 | comment | added | Cliff AB | @Karl: your comments in general suggest that your field works much differently than mine. Yes, you submit and move on to the next research project. If it gets rejected, and you're convinced that your work is still novel and important, you take the reviewers comments, fix it up and resubmit. I will point you again to the paper I linked; it took over three years from submission to acceptance (admittedly, this is an extreme outlier). What's even more amazing is that paper was really just a formality; Stan has widely embraced by many fields well before this paper was published. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 14:37 | comment | added | Karl | "might be published in a year or two" sounds funny to me: Do you stop working on the subject in the meantime? Otherwise you'd have to completely re-write the article after six months, latest. | |
| Feb 5, 2017 at 23:10 | comment | added | David Richerby | @CliffAB Sure, the bus example is hyperbolic. But that's why I continued my comment explaining why it's still important to volunteer information even when people's lives aren't at stake. | |
| Feb 5, 2017 at 22:33 | comment | added | Cliff AB | @O.R.Mapper: ah, interesting. In statistics, quite a different story. For example, take a look at the submitted and accepted dates for this paper. And keep in mind, Gelman is easily one of the biggest names in statistics! Maybe I should move toward CS... | |
| Feb 5, 2017 at 22:27 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @CliffAB: "might have this published in a few years" - field-specificity-alert ;) In applied-CS-related areas I'm most acquainted with, "remaining unpublished for more than some 12 months" usually implies it's outdated in one way or another and will never be published in a similar form to the current one. And while this varies a lot by field, processing times of job/study program applications may not vary quite that much, meaning that expectations on whether a submitted manuscript will have been accepted/published by the next contact with the prospective advisor can vary considerably. | |
| Feb 5, 2017 at 22:23 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | To name a less drastic example than the otherwise fitting one by @DavidRicherby, in particular one that does not invoke an obvious conflict with a moral obligation to tell about something, how about submitting a paper or an application for a funded project and getting a rejection in response to that? Would you tell your coauthors only if they ask rather than as soon as the message arrives? Keeping such news on progress to yourself does not seem conductive to team-based research endeavours, and working with an advisor (and, thereby, also with their team) is typically a team-based thing. | |
| Feb 5, 2017 at 22:22 | comment | added | Cliff AB | @DavidRicherby: I think there's a pretty big difference between not telling someone they are about to be hit by a bus and not telling someone your paper didn't get accepted. When I'm reviewing resumes, I read submitted as "might have this published in a year or two", not "definitely will be accepted any day now". Lying about it would a huge problem, but if it's not brought up, you don't need to (although I think you should, see my answer). | |
| Feb 5, 2017 at 16:46 | comment | added | David Richerby | And, by the same reasoning, if you see somebody about to step into the path of a moving bus, you don't need to shout at them to stop. After all, they didn't ask you if there was a bus, so you're under no obligation to tell them. How, exactly, is the potential advisor going to trust this student after they've failed to pass on potentially important information? Lies of omission are still lies. | |
| Feb 5, 2017 at 10:39 | history | answered | user12956 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |