My 12-step program to getting published ... or not
And now back to the effects of flooding on the pecan weevil.
Last week, the patented Nerd Girl Scientific Progress Flow Chart helped us follow the life cycle of a hypothesis. There were growth spurts, extended periods of indolence, and occasional forays into beer and moral turpitude.
This week, follow along with the patented Nerd Girl Scientific Publication Flowchart, wherein we determine whether our hypothesis gets a haircut and a job and moves out of its parents’ basement, or whether it’s doomed to rejection, scorn, and sitting around shotgunning Labatts and talking about how great things used to be.
0. Celebrate completion of manuscript describing hypothesis with game of Spider Solitaire.
0.1 Go to step 1.
1. Send manuscript to co-authors asking for their input.
1.1 Nobody replies to your e-mail. Think to yourself, “this is just like when I throw a party”. Cry a bit, then go to step 2.
1.2 Receive a smattering of half-hearted responses. Go to step 2.
1.3 Everyone responds with input. Go to step 3.
2. Send “gentle reminder” to those who haven’t replied. Congratulate self on ability to hide seething hatred of co-authors’ inertia in carefully-worded e-mail.
2.1 Yet again, nobody responds. Give up and go to step 4.
2.2 More half-hearted responses. Go to step 4.
3. Ha! Trick question. This never happens. Go back to step 2, dreamer. And take your rainbows, unicorns and dream of a perfect world with you.
4. Weight co-authors’ input, determine whether it is worthy of inclusion in the manuscript.
4.1 No. Go to step 5.
4.2 Grudgingly adjust a few sentences and go to step 5.
5. Send manuscript to supervisor for review. Go to step 6.
6. Wait. Go to step 7.
7. Continue waiting. Return to step 6 and get caught in horrible infinite loop of waiting. Eventually break out of the cycle by exploiting a rip in space-time, or just knocking on your supervisor’s door and guilt-tripping them into reading your paper. Go to step 8.
8. Begin arduous process of submitting the paper to a respectable journal. The exact format for submission varies from journal to journal, however the one aspect of the process universal to all journals is that it is bloody stupid.
8.1 Put on protective helmet so as to not damage yourself during the inevitable banging-head-on-desk that is soon to happen. Go to step 8.2.
8.2 Try 28 possible username/password combinations in attempt to remember your journal submission system login details. Eventually give up and create new account. Go to step 8.3.
8.3 Split your carefully constructed manuscript up into whatever arbitrary chunks the journal insists upon (“Abstract”, “Introduction”, “Middle bit”, “Part that only makes sense to 4 people on this planet, none of whom will be reviewing this”), uploading an individual file for each section. 18 files later, go to step 8.4.
8.4 Spend a further day uploading each individual figure and figure legend. Go to step 8.5.
8.5 Complete the submission by crafting a suitably gushing cover letter praising the journal and its fine editorial board whilst grovelling for inclusion in their upcoming issue. Hit “Submit” and go to step 9.
9. Wait for a response.
9.1 No news is good news. This means the journal has sent your article out to reviewers with some expertise on the effects of flooding on the pecan weevil. Pray that Nickels isn’t one of them, and go to step 10.
9.2 Should the journal decide that wet pecan weevils are not of interest to their readership, they will e-mail you within a few weeks with the editorial equivalent of the breakup – “it’s just not a good fit for our readership”. Pursue typical post-breakup strategy of deciding to aim lower next time. Skip Nature or Science in favour of resubmitting to someone less likely to reject you, like Scandinavian Transactions on Hyperhydrated Weevils. Return to step 9.
10. Some months later, you receive the reviewer’s reports.
10.1 Reviewer 1 was clearly too busy with Spider Solitaire to submit anything more than the most cursory of reviews. Agree to their inconsequential suggestions (“I really don’t like the use of orange in Figure 6A”) and move on to step 11.
10.2 Reviewer 2 will only accept your paper provided you jump through a series of experimental hoops in an attempt to satisfying their nagging curiosity regarding a point that nobody else on the planet cares about. Bribe a grad student with beer again to carry out said experiments; begin crafting small Reviewer 2 voodoo doll. When experiments are complete and paper is modified, continue to step 11.
10.3 Reviewer 3, who is probably Nickels, hated your paper and is ruing the fact that the electronic review system does not allow them to send a flaming bag of dog poop over the internet in lieu of an actual written report. Hope that the journal editor figures 2/3 is good enough and move to step 11.
11. After having made the adjustments requested by the reviewers, put your helmet back on and resubmit the revised version of your manuscript using the same arduous process as in step 8. Go to step 12.
12. Hope that your adjustments were sufficient to ensure acceptance of the manuscript.
12.1 Rejection! Consider leaving weevil biology.
12.2 Success! You’ll be in Scandinavian Transactions on Hyperhydrated Weevils in only 8 months’ time! Realize the insignificance of the achievement and consider leaving weevil biology anyway.

JENNIFER GARDY