![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This paper is more trouble than it's worth. I'll refer to people only by their initials to protect them. It's not like you know them anyway
Last Monday
SZ: I'm going to JPL on Wednesday. I can give the paper to MZ to review and she'll tell us if it's good enough to send to Science
JR: (writes the paper)
Thursday (from JPL)
SZ: MZ likes it. I also talked to DS who had nothing useful to say. But it needs to be revised:
JR: (revises it)
Thursday evening
JR: (gets all his hair cut off)
SZ: Can you send me the paper?
JR: (sends the paper. It's not really great by then, but ok)
Monday
SZ: If we send to Science it may get the same reviewers as Nature. Let's just send to GRL and get it behind us
JR: (revises paper for GRL)
Today
JR: (sends GRL version to SZ)
SZ: Even if Science rejects this, GRL is fast. We could still get it published this year, worst case. Plus, I got MZ to read it, we ought to at least try Science. Can you send me the Science version again? Also, did you get some kind of haircut?
JR: (sends Science version to SZ, again.)
Here's how many versions of this paper there are:
In January, I write a paper for Icarus (yes, there's a journal called Icarus. Don't ask) Great! Let's present it at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. I write the abstract (LPSC abstracts are 2 pages). We decided our reasoning isn't robust and abandon it. We add in something else and it works better (after a month of additional work).
In February, we decide it's interesting enough to send to Nature, a much bigger journal than Icarus, but also very picky. I rewrite the paper for Nature, and submit it. The material for this paper is to form the final chapter of my thesis. Nature's a short journal, so I can't just turn the paper into a chapter like I did with the others.
In March, some colleagues submit a paper to Nature on a similar topic for a different planet, based on the reasoning we abandoned. It's accepted. I write the thesis chapter. The conference is coming up, so I make the poster. Not based on the abstract, but on the thesis chapter. I present it.
In April, I defend my thesis, and turn it in.
In May, we FINALLY get the reviews back. Nature soundly rejects the paper based largely on the reviewers getting basic facts wrong, and partly on the other paper. I graduate. I rewrite for Science. I rewrite for GRL.
There are now seven versions of this paper.
1. Icarus (abandoned)
2. LPSC Abstract (published)
3. Nature (rejected)
4. Thesis Chapter (published)
5. LPSC Poster (presented)
6. Science
7. GRL
Oy. Now I will eat some coconut cream pie. For those of you who are actually interested, this paper is on the orientation of the crustal dichotomy on Mars. That is, why is the northern hemisphere low, and the southern hemisphere high?
Last Monday
SZ: I'm going to JPL on Wednesday. I can give the paper to MZ to review and she'll tell us if it's good enough to send to Science
JR: (writes the paper)
Thursday (from JPL)
SZ: MZ likes it. I also talked to DS who had nothing useful to say. But it needs to be revised:
JR: (revises it)
Thursday evening
JR: (gets all his hair cut off)
SZ: Can you send me the paper?
JR: (sends the paper. It's not really great by then, but ok)
Monday
SZ: If we send to Science it may get the same reviewers as Nature. Let's just send to GRL and get it behind us
JR: (revises paper for GRL)
Today
JR: (sends GRL version to SZ)
SZ: Even if Science rejects this, GRL is fast. We could still get it published this year, worst case. Plus, I got MZ to read it, we ought to at least try Science. Can you send me the Science version again? Also, did you get some kind of haircut?
JR: (sends Science version to SZ, again.)
Here's how many versions of this paper there are:
In January, I write a paper for Icarus (yes, there's a journal called Icarus. Don't ask) Great! Let's present it at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. I write the abstract (LPSC abstracts are 2 pages). We decided our reasoning isn't robust and abandon it. We add in something else and it works better (after a month of additional work).
In February, we decide it's interesting enough to send to Nature, a much bigger journal than Icarus, but also very picky. I rewrite the paper for Nature, and submit it. The material for this paper is to form the final chapter of my thesis. Nature's a short journal, so I can't just turn the paper into a chapter like I did with the others.
In March, some colleagues submit a paper to Nature on a similar topic for a different planet, based on the reasoning we abandoned. It's accepted. I write the thesis chapter. The conference is coming up, so I make the poster. Not based on the abstract, but on the thesis chapter. I present it.
In April, I defend my thesis, and turn it in.
In May, we FINALLY get the reviews back. Nature soundly rejects the paper based largely on the reviewers getting basic facts wrong, and partly on the other paper. I graduate. I rewrite for Science. I rewrite for GRL.
There are now seven versions of this paper.
1. Icarus (abandoned)
2. LPSC Abstract (published)
3. Nature (rejected)
4. Thesis Chapter (published)
5. LPSC Poster (presented)
6. Science
7. GRL
Oy. Now I will eat some coconut cream pie. For those of you who are actually interested, this paper is on the orientation of the crustal dichotomy on Mars. That is, why is the northern hemisphere low, and the southern hemisphere high?
