(1/X) In our everyday lives rejection and criticism are two ugly words. As scientists we can choose to take the feedback (if given), walk away before damaging the computer that delivered the message, and after breathing come back to make more clear the message that was lost.

(2/X) These are becoming my mantras or mental reframing to prevent the cycle of #impostersyndrome rearing its stupid ugly head during a time when expectations need to be managed. Thank you @MaluTansey for continuing to remind me how important it is.

(3/X) Your research article was rejected from a high impact journal: You cannot win the lottery unless you play, so congratulate yourself for even trying, but think about what high impact means…

(4/X) High impact could indicate the latest and greatest, the story that has to be told, a finding that changes thinking or shifts paradigms…all of these apply to the paper, so most importantly keep shopping and get the message out there!

(5/X) Your article was rejected from an area specific journal: “But this is should have been perfect, why can’t they see how great my paper is?”...

(6/X) Sometimes it is you and not them...What did the peer reviewers point out that can make your paper better before shopping it around? If there is enthusiasm, but confusion how can you more clearly state your hypothesis or demonstrate how you tested it?

(7/X) Criticism comes in all forms in science, but on the whole should be delivered as constructive. Specific Aims pages are one of the best examples. The page should “sing” before even starting the Research Strategy.

(8/X) If you are verbally answering your colleagues questions, work it out on paper. Or, in parallel draw out your workflow to see at what point is the message lost? It is our job to take the reviewer on the exciting adventure with us, but they need your words to guide them.