[Sextonlabpastmembers] Fwd: Isotope Queen-Biogeochemistry Memoir

Wed Jan 12 09:56:58 PST 2022

Wise words on the publishing game from a career master.

Jay

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Isotope Queen-Biogeochemistry Memoir <noreply+feedproxy at google.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Isotope Queen-Biogeochemistry Memoir
To: <jsexton2 at ucmerced.edu>

Isotope Queen-Biogeochemistry Memoir <https://isotopequeen.blogspot.com/>
------------------------------

When and where to submit: guidelines for the 21st century
<https://isotopequeen.blogspot.com/2022/01/when-and-where-to-submit-guidelines-for.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>

Posted: 10 Jan 2022 08:16 PM PST

<https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjRbcrNbTnhnPA3FPTKXw-tuTgivrbHGr09yI8zHIeTGrZRKWfXVUyLssQd8SAxndqnjMtuI2ZX1YQuAmQUCIJkhVtRrFPsiT6IdqNTPRQcEXbOvl95j1DEwhxrjDtnHv8oN3S_Rt47btkFg9xu69QvGJaWlGuHvSaCYDF40OYCconIfAdcyk1biz_f1A=s5728>
Evan and Marilyn: New son and new mass spec, 1991

Seth Newsome and I use the term “money figure” to describe that perfect
graph that clearly sums up everything you had hoped for when you designed
and carried out your experiment. A “money figure” is often the cornerstone
of your manuscript, which is then written to flesh out the message in that
key graphic. If you are really lucky, your ideas and hard work might have
resulted in more than one money figure in the unfolding manuscript.

It’s not unusual, however, to do a lot of work, and then come up with
results that fall flat. Your job, then, is to make the best of the
situation, graph up and summarize what you can, and write it up. Often,
this type of work ends up unpublished. And that won’t help anyone get to
the next level of innovation or thought. But, the feeling that your work
isn’t good enough can be powerful.

Writing either type of paper requires slightly different skills. The money
figure paper can be fun to assemble, easy to engage your colleagues to help
out, and make you feel triumphant. I’d say that about 10% of the papers
I’ve published recently have that money figure quality to them. Perhaps out
of my lifetime of work, I would say about 20% of my publications have that
“special something” that made the work hold its value over time. Based on
citations, it’s now easy to get a better sense of how the community has
viewed your work.

<https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgpeF2rE2_Bb-Z6xb2cqVpJsJF1D6uxl9OTLTCMV7XFKj1kf5j8waE2BmrIGrjwy0XA9IW990xWieaOz7X2noVLALEA6rK_SOTAveh6SK8b8LG_VpYxMJemMFgQt1iBuFqxGY3Pw0J387ooZ1PK3-5b1TpAyiwQvpYZSb5jrnJJE2mLqgUpkGgH4-AlOw=s572>
Money Figure, PNAS 2016

The opinion of your scientific community is indeed important.

*For those works that don’t have the zing you’d hoped for, you need
discipline.* You’ve got to make sure you’ve mined all of your data, made
tens of graphs and figures, discussed the work with your colleagues as you
begin to assemble the manuscript. Take heed—you may drift from getting the
words down on paper (or in your computer.) Chasing after the “better” idea
makes some sense, but when you think about it, not publishing 75% of your
work because it’s not easy, is a waste.

If you are a graduate student, you’ll need to power through these
challenges or risk slowing down the progress in getting your degree. The
dissertation, in my experience, often includes a chapter that may never see
the light of day other than in the longer, university-required format. If
you are a postdoc, your “job” is to get a “real” job, so you’ll want to
publish your most exciting work as soon as you can. Saving the less
thrilling data to complete when you are first starting the “real” job can
be critical for keeping you in the community’s eyes until you get new work
completed.

If you are pre-tenure, all too often your department will merely count your
papers—and not actually read them. Having a goal of one first authored
paper per year is a modest, but often attainable goal. Sticking with this
for 5-7 years will help with your tenure review.

But when to submit?

Will the work be good enough?

Is it the best you can do with what you have?

Sometimes, we choke at the last minute. What if it’s not perfect? Rarely,
if ever, are manuscripts perfect when submitted, but if you’ve done your
best, it’s time to push the submit button and let the review process begin.
Let the reviewers, as nerve-wracking as that may be, do their job.

Frolleague Kate Freeman says, “Isn’t that what the review process is for?”
We all hope for polite, constructive reviews, comments that make our work
more readable and understandable.

Times have changed. Even with an explosion of new journals, getting a swift
rejection based solely on a “desk review” by an editor, who makes an
executive decision, is very common these days. A recent paper Seth and I
wrote was desk-rejected 4 or 5 times before finding its journal home—and
this was a paper with a money figure!

Go figure. Our problem was not the data or the writing. It was the fit.

Perhaps because of the plethora of journals these days, specialized
journals really look for studies that fit their publication’s mission.
Finding that perfect fit takes thought. And strategy. Sure *PLOS One* will
publish anything, but will it reach the audience you’d like it to?

<https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEis_WHrbZY4Lt67Gk9AnLi5pd8a3WqJP0S0XqQQvptOs1DFD4sIaqs2U20vMHNNrfxFeiOlcyH1BNCTkZ_AlBRZKLyI2DxJuHL1HSeSGe8InRYdECT-WDEVVBhA2sIh1XIpJWXpD4rtxJuj6JhjXkoIZLqQVZPBVJa3KHX2qunTWfZju-8lJ73mfOSStg=s917>
PLOS paper showing variation no one wanted to know about...really

The answer is maybe. With everything available online these days, people
can find your work on Google Scholar or Research Gate. Keep in mind,
however, if you’re just starting out in your career, very few people may be
“following” you yet. Thus, it is best to publish your work in a journal
where people are most interested in the questions you’ve asked and the
results you found.

My goal in publishing is to join the community conversation—get my ideas
out there for others to consider, enjoy, or criticize.

Back to that paper you’re writing with the flashy money figure, where to
submit it? Should you go for *Science, Nature, or PNAS*? Your odds are
tough: even really good papers get bumped without any review. As a guest
editor for *PNAS*, I’m pretty liberal and send out about half for review.
The review process is thorough, and it’s not unusual for a paper to be
reviewed three or four times before it’s accepted. That said, when the work
finally comes out in one of these journals, it’s seen as a Scientific
Homerun.

<https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiQuo4rkl-3DVXrwnLR2MPOtN3CYfkf7jGhYuaVmWl71o8x-1Ux1ReT3gBt4KMQ2keHdOHJ1AExitwf1xwsX05poIsfE7uWhIr1F6IesU9r5KCFQkEFP623G7FFnYvSXk7K1mBJ3oCrHSRGU0w8zekkV0Uec2GFhBV1XCHl1hMRi1PBuKpFpsMqVt6mrA=s1138>
Money figure from Science, 2005

Using the baseball analogy, how often do we need to hit homeruns to have a
successful career? What about hitting some triples or doubles? Heck, even
singles can result in runs.

I’d guess that about 25-30% of my publications are doubles, maybe triples,
leaving about 50% or more as singles—good but not paradigm changers.  Yes,
the *Science,* *Nature,* and *PNAS* papers have that Home Run touch to
them, but other work published in seemingly obscure journals to
outsiders (*Geochimica
et Cosmochimica* *Acta*, for example) are also very well cited and remain
pertinent to current scientific conversations.

Although perfection isn’t needed before submission, I strongly advise
against the idea that it’s OK to submit a paper that you know isn’t your
best effort because “reviewers will fix it.” You don’t want to piss off
your reviewers, folks taking their precious time to help you out. We all
know that while money is precious, time is even more so.

<https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgAF3DviO9JgvcnaCAzoe0E8XxW7Ff9TkZZrrTwe5axJjo20vW7D5nhAlggWsBUC_2zTQ9EH2vnq1rnecQhPm3g4iEZ7orbXL9UJS8lWZ0-fytZshCvAXye4ceq5NCkoc1fahHDJcBWXq-GiMkLEJkjF9DJ5B36vrWsuwE8fG3HabqSfeaabg8YDgBN7g=s5500>
Your kids will get old before you know it. 2000

Balancing your efforts with writing, submitting, and revising, with a
perceived need for perfection, is important to keep in mind. About half of
my papers having 100 citations (about 66 total) or more were published more
than twenty years ago, and half since 2000. I think that's a decent measure
of a successful career—a good early start and then some highlights peppered
throughout. Sprinkle in those “conversation starters” and you’ve done your
job.

Choose your target journal carefully, get the paper completed and finished.
Submit. Grow in your prowess to write effectively and interestingly. Then,
you’ve joined the rich conversation in science!

"I am careful not to confuse excellence with perfection. Excellence, I can
reach for; perfection is God`s business." - Michael J. Fox

You are subscribed to email updates from Isotope Queen-Biogeochemistry
Memoir <https://isotopequeen.blogspot.com/>.
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now
<https://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=iT3BSX1hfLY18X0SFpmCgcguT4U>
. Email delivery powered by Google
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

-- 
Jason (Jay) Sexton
(he/him/his)
Associate Professor
Chair, UCM Senate Committee on Research
Department of Life and Environmental Sciences
University of California, Merced
231 Science and Engineering Building 1
jsexton2 at ucmerced.edu
http://sextonlab.ucmerced.edu/

---Here again we are reminded that in nature nothing exists alone ~ Rachel
Carson---

---Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished ~ Lao Tzu---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucmerced.edu/pipermail/sextonlabpastmembers/attachments/20220112/4c860eec/attachment-0001.html>