Question: When does a paper get rejected?
Answer: When it’s reviewed as “interesting”, “thoughtful”, “provocative”, “original”, and “creative.”…but wrong for the journal.
I just got a manuscript accepted -on the third journal attempt. Now that it’s finally coming out, I can relax, look forward to the proofs, and ask…why did this take so damn long? In this case it boils down to finding the right venue for the material, and perhaps, requesting the right reviewers. The problem is that there’s no magic formula for deciding where to submit a manuscript. As an author, you have to weigh shooting for the best journal possible vs. the delay of being rejected and submitting to another journal. You have to consider the manuscript’s generality. You have to decide on your target audience. And of course we all want the most prestigious journal possible, or at least one with a good impact factor (oh just admit it, we all think about that). This paper, “Development of resource shed delineation in aquatic ecosystems” was a bit problematic because it didn’t fit neatly into one subject. Or as I wrote in the first cover letter:
Our multi-disciplinary approach expands an ecological concept by using hydrology and oceanography. Hence our intended target audience is larger than that of a journal specialized in a single discipline (e.g. hydrology, limnology, or ecology). Moreover, due to numerous potential applications to ecological issues of high management priority, we intend to target a wide audience of applied ecologists and managers.
I figured Ecological Applications might be an appropriate venue, since it is “concerned broadly with the applications of ecological science to environmental problems.” They didn’t agree and sent it back without review. Okay, how about Limnology and Oceanography? I’ve published there twice as first author. They sent it out for review, and the comments weren’t bad. The manuscript could be shortened, okay…clarify this and that…right. No real problems that couldn’t be addressed in a re-write, but rejected. Looking closer I fixed on this comment: “Analysis/Interpretation – This seems ok, but I am not a modeler or a physical limnologist.” And there it is, I recommended the wrong reviewers.
To be fair, I probably tried to do too much in a single manuscript. You know, the usual: apply a concept from one discipline to another, introduce a new approach, argue for its use based on historical development of the field, present results, interpret them, and suggest a host of applications. I had also recommended reviewers that were more on the ecological and basic-science side. So trying again this time with Environmental Science and Technology I scaled the thing back and importantly, suggested reviewers more on the applied-science side. And, following a re-write, was finally successful.
BTW, this is the manuscript I wrote about concerning supplemental material. Ironically, in the re-write I reduced the scope in order to better focus the paper, eliminating supplementary material altogether. With the publication of this paper, and vetting of our application of the concept of resource shed in the peer-reviewed literature, we are now free to work on atlases of resource sheds in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
About a year or so ago, we EPA scientists learned that, from now on, all our scientific products had to have a disclaimer. This included papers, posters, presentations…even abstracts. The suggested text was, if I can remember correctly, ”Disclaimer: Although reviewed and approved by EPA, this document does not necessarily reflect the policies or represent the official views of the Agency.” That’s a 23-word sentence. If you’re not familiar with the importance of word counts, most scientific documents have word limits, especially abstracts. So having to include 23 words is a lot, especially when you only have 200 words to play with. But notice I said “suggested”. There’s no official disclaimer. So the question is, what’s the shortest disclaimer I can write?
“The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency” =20 words, suggested by internal reviewer.
“Although this work was reviewed by USEPA and approved for publication, official Agency policy is not established herein” – 18 words.
“No Agency positions are established in this expression of the author’s views” – 12 words.
“Although reviewed and approved, this publication does not establish EPA policy” - 11 words.
“This publication does not establish USEPA policy” – 7 words
“No agency policies are herein established” – 6 words
An explanation of the deportations provided by Highland Statistics Ltd.
The problem is that Prof Anderson is a non EU resident coming into the UK/EU for commercial work. And that is not allowed. Same rules apply in the US.
- Alain, Highland Statistics, Ltd., posted to Ecolog
More advice:
It depends on the country, but the general rule is that if you are getting any sort of remuneration, even an honorarium, you may need a business visa, or someone may decide you need a business visa once you get to immigration. Business visas are now frequently required by many countries if you are attending a scientific conference, even if you are not receiving anything.
SO you can either research the situation and hope you get it right and get the visa in time (the U.S. is notoriously fickle and slow) or come in as a tourist and answer accordingly.
There may be UNESCO guidelines on receiving support for conferences and on visas, but if so, no one seems to be following them.
- David Duffy, posted to Ecolog
Concerning the UK deportation of scientists, apprently this happens to cartoonists with Ph.Ds too (see Oct 26).
In posts to the Ecolog listserv, scientists report difficulty entering the United Kingdom. Intending to perform professional activities, the scientists were denied entry and then deported. Border officials cited lack of required paperwork. New paperwork requirements were news to veteran scientists and their would-be hosts.
I flew to London-Heathrow a week ago on my way to Glasgow, Scotland where I was to give a 2-day workshop, a day of consultation and a seminar. The University of Glasgow was to pay for my expenses and services and 41 grad students, post docs, and faculty were registered for the workshop. I was detained at Heathrow by the UK Border Agency for nearly 5 hours. During his time I was searched, questioned, fingerprinted, photographed and moved from one secure room to the next – like a criminal. My carry-on suitcase and leather bag with my workshop materials were emptied and searched, along with my wallet. I asked on 7 different occasions to be able to call the US Embassy — these requests were denied! At the end of this long process the agent announced that I was to be deported the next day! They claimed that I did not have a special visa or a “certificate of sponsorship.” Indeed, I had neither; I had never heard of such requirements for an US citizen. I have spent 42 years working in academic/science and have travelled to many foreign countries. I have never experienced such detention and deportation. UK universities, travel agents, immigration attorneys, my US Senator’s office and others are now trying to unravel exactly what papers are actually required. This search has proven to be difficult for a number of reasons. This matter is important as all the UK universities have academic visitors arriving daily for conferences, symposia, workshops, and seminars, etc., etc. with countless agreements concerning reimbursements and honoraria. It seems that special documents are now required or one faces deportation and all the related expenses. I will post again if I learn more; in the meantime, professionals going to the UK should make every effort to obtain the “required” documents.
- David R. Anderson, posted to Ecolog-L
I was planning to spend two months in Scotland, visiting friends and possibly volunteering on some wildlife studies, although I had not confirmed anything upon my arrival. I had just spent two months volunteering on a study in Iceland, and when I arrived in Glasgow I was detained and questioned for several hours regarding my intentions. Eventually, I mentioned the possibility of assisting with some field work, but made it very clear I would not be getting paid, and that it was only a possibility. I thought this would make my situation better, as it would make me out to be doing something more than being an aimless backpacker. Instead, I was informed that under new UK legislation ‘volunteer work’ requires sponsorship and a volunteer visa beforehand. It is a bit of a blanket clause, since there are quite a few more ways to not get paid for ‘working’ than getting paid for it. I insisted that I had friends who had done similar things in the UK, and the customs official told me “they probably lied about what they were doing here, and the law just took effect in July.” A quick check of the UK immigration website shows this law took effect in November of 2008. Perhaps they started enforcing it in July on some sort of whim… After all this, I was told I was being deported, via Iceland since I had arrived on IcelandAir. The next flight was not until that Friday (this was a Wednesday). Initially it appeared that I would be detained until my flight on Friday, but after presenting my passport as a type of ‘bail,’ being fingerprinted, and photographed, I was released into Glasgow on the condition that I provide an address where I would be staying and check in. During this time, I received the assistance of an immigration attorney and presented an appeal to the Chief of Immigration. The appeal was denied, and I was shipped back to the US under the charge of ‘implied intent to commit to voluntary charity.
- Bill DeVoe, posted to Ecolog-L
A New EPA Press Release:
Federal Agencies to Discuss Best Ways to Prioritize, Evaluate Scientific Research
WASHINGTON – Research management experts from across federal science agencies will gather in Washington, D.C., Oct. 28-29, to discuss approaches for identifying research priorities, exploring research performance management, and assessing the impact of completed research. The goal of the meeting is to develop a collaborative framework to ensure future research and development dollars are spent wisely and in a coordinated manner. “We are bringing together a host of research management experts to discuss best practices for research and development investments” said Lek Kadeli, EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Research and Development. “The efficiencies we seek through this collaborative effort are a critical component of a vibrant, green economy.” The workshop, co-sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and George Washington University, will bring together federal agencies, industry, and academia to identify efficiencies and management strategies that could be applicable to other research and development agencies. More information about the workshop
For those of you looking for jobs in Ecology, I recommend GetEcologyJobs.com and GetBiologyJobs.com. There’s a set of websites from this company. They tend to list both private sector and academic jobs.
Be careful how you type your password into USAjobs. According to USAjobs,
“Your USAJOBS password is case-sensitive. Please be sure that you are using the correct case when logging in; using incorrect case will prompt you to change your password.”
I’ve never heard of a website forcing you to change your password because of a single typo.
I’ve launched a new website called Dueling News Feeds.
It grabs the latest news, videos, blog posts, and podcasts from either side of a rivalry, debate, argument, or culture war skirmish.
Browse the duels then suggest one we should set up! What would you like to see?
Does your blog, podcast or Youtube channel have an RSS feed? Want more traffic? Your site can be listed in a duel for free! Let us know and we will look to see if it fits. Reach a new audience! No RSS feed? We can probably still mine it.
