My Own Awesome Typo

Thanks to a coauthor who reviewed my letter to the editor describing my revisions in response to a revise/resubmit.

Here's what I had written:

"While the reviewer is correct in nothing..."

While this is close to how I actually feel, what I really meant to write was:

"While the reviewer is correct in noting..."

Random Bullets of Postdoclyness

•I just had my first dissertation article accepted. Huzzah! The reviews were the best I’ve ever had. One reviewer says, “ …I can see the paper being accepted almost as-is, and would not be surprised if that were the eventual decision.” WHOA. For the record, this is my first article in a good journal ever. It is also, not so coincidentally, my first good article. The others were mostly remnants from student projects. And it’s damn nice to know someone else thinks it’s good too.

•Can’t believe I’m already 6 months in to a 2 year postdoc.

•Do I just get the bad articles for peer review? Why do they all suck so bad?

•How is 100% soft money not some kind of violation of human rights?

•Why did I get myself volunteered to be a chair for a committee?

•Why has my article been “awaiting reviewer assignment” for 3 months? When it’s a freaking revision and has already been assigned reviewers!

•I can’t code well. I have no attention to detail. I waste a lot of time on fixing my own bad code.

•I hate my cubicle. I feel like it’s some kind of horrible hazing experiment to put the new postdoc in a cubicle with her back and computer screen facing the door.

•I really, really, really want to be a beekeeper. I think my backyard is too small for this right now though. It might upset some neighbors.

•Is it 5 yet?

•Is it normal that every other day I think about changing careers? When I haven’t even technically started this one?

•I am totally cynical. I think 99% of manuscripts in my field are b.s. Do I really want to write tons and tons of b.s?

•A small, optimistic, Pollyanna part of me really did think such existential crises would end post-PhD. The cynical remainder of me is pretty pissed (but not at all surprised) that this was not the case.

Manuscript Review...and Possible Revenge

I have just been asked to review a manuscript for a journal and return the review within one month. I have never published in this journal. I did, however, submit an article there three months ago. It's still under review.

Perhaps I can speed the process with one of Anomie’s Blind Reviewer Voodoo Doll!!

The Big Time of Peer Review

So I was recently asked to be a peer reviewer for Big Time Disciplinary Journal. This is pretty exciting since it's the first time I have ever been asked to review something for publication. And because it's a fancy pantsy journal.

At first I was confused because I have never published in this journal. I immediately thought it was a mistake. Then, I figured that maybe someone I know requested me as a reviewer. But I don't think that anybody I know wrote this. And it's not in a field where my name would automatically come to mind as a content expert. Don't get me wrong, there are some fields in which I can be considered an expert. For instance, if someone wanted to know the Best Happy Hour Spots in Houston, they might know to call me up. Anywho, it finally occurred to me that I have submitted articles to this journal in the past that were rejected. And I mean REJECTED!--as in, never even made it past some kind of automaton-a-la-Jetsons-computerized-sorting-system to get to the hands of a reviewer or human being. Anyway, as a consequence, I have an online profile which matches up almost word for word with the keywords of the article they asked me to review. So the digital-peer-reviewer-sorter-system-de-jour must have found me through my profile.

Unfortunately, now I am suffering through a I-think-it-should-be-rejected-but-who-am-I-to-say paranoia. As well as its counterpart, the how-much-time-do-I-waste-explaining-the-paper's-faults-and-
clearly-articulating-my-critique conundrum.