Timeline for Should I inform my potential advisor that my paper got rejected?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2017 at 21:02 | comment | added | Cliff AB | @Karl: JCGS is a very good, but not quite top journal in my field. Their most recent acceptance rate listed here was 18%, although this is the lowest of a steady downward trend. But my point is that your idea that "4/5 of your papers should be accepted on the first submission" is not really realistic in my field. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 20:51 | comment | added | Karl | @WillR Add "possibly" to "move to other journal". The point still holds, imo. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 20:22 | comment | added | Will R | @Karl: No one said anything about switching journals, at least as far as I can see... | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 18:28 | comment | added | Karl | @msouth Of course, that's how it is usually done! I have three first-author papes, one "accepted pending major revision", two "with minor revisions". But if it takes several tries, moving to less reputable/differently oriented journals on the way, then I think there was really something wrong with the original manuscript or choice of journal. No? | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 16:29 | comment | added | msouth | @Karl, I just want to note here that no one said "I submit work I know is shoddy, since I know the reviewers will help me fix it up." Nor "I intentionally submit to journals that are way out of my league, in order to get free expert help!". I highly doubt that reviewers will take a lousy paper and work with the author to turn it into a good one. It seems dramatically more likely that the reviewers, being adults and experts in their fields, recognize a paper that they feel should be published in their journal once a few points are addressed and they suggest the necessary improvements. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 14:28 | comment | added | Karl | That sounds slightly unethical to me: You are cashing in on the unpaid, unrewarded work of anonymous referees. That's of course OK, always happens to a smaller extent, but it's a bit shady to regularily submit papers to journals with too high standards, and hope the referees give you the missing ideas. They should be authors, then! Everybody accepts that if it happens with one in five papers, but four out of five? (Hope you get my drift, I don't mean to insult your work. Just my thought.) | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 14:07 | comment | added | Cliff AB | @Karl: yes and no. I wish that all my papers got accepted on their first submission, both for my time and the reviewers' time. On the other hand, the back and forth of these papers has greatly improved the quality of some of them (note: my field, statistics, does not do the conference system, but machine learning does). | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 10:31 | comment | added | Karl | This "conference only" publication scheme of some fields is somewhat alien to me, but if everybody submits each of of his papers to three journals/conferences before they are accepted, don't you think that is a huge wase of everyones time and there is something rotten in the system? | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 8:23 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Feb 6, 2017 at 6:21 | comment | added | Cliff AB | @Karl: Of course I try to have my first submission accepted, but I cannot say that's reliably how it works (especially for earlier career researcher). My PI, who is a top researcher in their field, still has this experience. They were just telling me how they've never had a paper accepted to a given conference despite submitting many times...yet they've been asked to be a keynote speaker at that conference. I think acceptance rates may be very different for different fields? | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 1:56 | comment | added | Karl | "One almost never gets a paper accepted on the first submission.." Hm? That would mean you are constantly wasting your own and the editors and referees time by submitting sloppy work and/or to unsuitable journals. Of course the acceptance is nearly always with "pending minor revisions", did you mean that? | |
| Feb 5, 2017 at 21:59 | history | edited | Cliff AB | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Feb 5, 2017 at 21:10 | history | edited | Cliff AB | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Feb 5, 2017 at 21:04 | history | edited | Cliff AB | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Feb 5, 2017 at 18:09 | history | answered | Cliff AB | CC BY-SA 3.0 |