Read on Twitter
Had a novel story. Had senior PIs in the field read the draft. Several advised to submit to "big" journals. So I did. All rejected (so far). They argued for lack of conceptual advance and results would only interest people working with that cell population. (both so wrong) 1/10
This raises so many comments on potential bias, the actual place of science in publishing and support from host institutions. 2/10
Chances of the same paper to make it through to reviewers if submitted by one of the senior PIs I asked to read my draft would be much higher than my own chances. 3/10.
The comments felt as if a machine had replied to my submission. The fact that an editor behaved like a machine is even more infuriating. 4/10.
(currently appealing the decision by highlighting in my cover letter all points that contradicts their claims)
(currently appealing the decision by highlighting in my cover letter all points that contradicts their claims)
I have a permanent position from a tax-payer funded organisation (CNRS). So, what is the point of submitting papers to for-profit journals anyway? Especially to get this kind of feedback? 5/10.
Why do we have to play this game? Because recruitment and careers are based on your track record. Not the actual quality of your science but how "well" or "high" you publish (whatever that means). A well-cited paper in a "small' journal will get you nowhere. 6/10.
Last department evaluation, the head of the panel said "you need to be more ambitious than Nature Comms". Great scientific advice.... 7/10.
One reason for this, you are hired by people that confuse the quality of your research with the reputation of the journals you published in. Then a search algorithm can do the job of ranking applicants. 8/10.
I wish the CNRS (one the largest and most influential science organisation on the planet) would bare its staff from publishing in for-profit journals and enforce mandatory pre-prints publications and post-publication peer-review. 9/10
But then someone would have to read your work and make an effort to understand what is the point of what you're doing. So I guess that puts the idea to rest. 10/10.
(the whole thread applies for grant applications too)
(the whole thread applies for grant applications too)
