What's Eni been up to?

[enismirdal]

Yesterday I submitted a paper. And also resubmitted one that came back from the referees a while ago with lots of comments in need of attention.

Submitting a paper is a bit like submitting a fic to an archive. Except at least 20 times more complicated. But the procedure's broadly the same except you don't have to give it a content rating. Took me most of the day to submit those two manuscripts.

One has, amusingly, been rejected already (before 7am this morning!!). ("Outside the scope of this journal" - not enough genetics, apparently.) So now we hit the fun bit of deciding what journal to try next, and reformat/rewrite accordingly. I'm not particularly disappointed - I know it'll be published somewhere, so it's just a question of where, and when.

Went to a little conference today. Ran into some old friends/acquaintances from previous conferences. Decided I was too dopey to cope with the AGM, which was scheduled just before lunch, so went to the pub with the other PhD students and enjoyed a long lunch break. Some interesting talks, chances to meet new people. Enjoyed myself.

Mulled wine party tomorrow, which should be fun. :D

Everyone in the world seems to be sick again. Fortunately I seem to be OK.

Comments

[keiliss.livejournal.com]

Your day sounds great. Long lunches are always the best, and it's good to meet new people.

I always wondered how submitting for publication worked. Like sending n a fanfic and finding the right archive, huh? (as in 'I'm sorry we can't accept your fic but this archive does not allow slash')

[enismirdal.livejournal.com]

It is more or less the same kind of process. You spend days formatting the manuscript just right, with all the correct fonts and italics and pictures in the right places at the right resolution. Then you go through the nightmarish submission dashboard, which usually contradicts the instructions to authors listed on the website, so you have to change some things at the last minute, and discover you need some crucial bit of information you'd not thought of before and have to chase down one of the co-authors on holiday to get it.

Then you've got one or two elitist archives that reject any manuscripts that aren't fashionable enough that week, without even reading more than the first page. And then it goes through peer review, which I assume is basically the same as the peer review Henneth Annun uses. You usually get a load of comments back, and you have to answer each one and make changes accordingly, which is hard work but if the referees are helpful it at least feels like a useful activity. Then you resubmit (same dashboard, marginally less arduous process because at least this time they already have the names and address of all the authors on file and so on), and sooner or later everyone is hopefully satisfied with the paper and you can publish (or someone's still unhappy and the paper gets rejected).

Oh, but the best bit is that they usually send the accepted manuscript to a dodgy typesetter/proofreader, and so you get the proofs back only to discover that some paper-pusher who doesn't know your subject has reworded whole sentences because they think it sounds better, but in the process changed the whole meaning of the paragraph, and removed important words like, say "not". So you have to go through with a fine-tooth comb and undo all the damage!

[sylc.livejournal.com]

Good luck with getting it accepted at a good home! Hope it doesn't take too much longer and that the typesetter doesn't reword too much of it (or any of it). :)

[silver-trails.livejournal.com]

Submitting a paper is a bit like submitting a fic to an archive. Except at least 20 times more complicated. But the procedure's broadly the same except you don't have to give it a content rating. Took me most of the day to submit those two manuscripts.

I agree. And I'd add another difference. You can argue back and post it somewhere else. :)

Two economists once sent two papers to the same journal, but the younger one and the older (and famous) one had exchanged papers. The younger one's paper sent by the famous economists was accepted. The other was rejected. So once you are accepted in good journals your chances of being accepted improve.