I was over the moon when I was invited to review a manuscript by the editor of Plant Pathology Journal. First thing that cross my mind was, at last my work has been acknowledge by an expert. Second thing that cross my mind was, OMG I have to read a lot as the other reviewer was a big shot in this molecular research. At least you don't want show any spark contrast between your report and his. Immediately, I started to feel a bit pressure mounting on my shoulder. Obviously, you want to do well for your first review as your reputation is at stake.
They gave me two weeks to review that paper. The recommendation that I should made were:
They gave me two weeks to review that paper. The recommendation that I should made were:
- Accept with minor revision
- Accept with major revision
- Reject and resubmit
- Reject
The thing was, the second reviewer made his review in one night!! Clearly, I'm not at his level but I told myself that I'm still learning and you'll reach that stage very soon. I think the most important thing are whether the basic work of the paper is sound, the display of results, the interpretation and overall writing style ( I'm not good at this; still working!!) and quality should be acceptable. One fact, about 70% of the paper submitted to journal were rejected. I guess you have to describe carefully what are you trying to interpret and reveal, you must not forget that every things need some clarifications. Otherwise, you'll be bombarded with questions, comments and possible rejection .
I remember, I took about 6 months before my first paper been accepted and more or less the same time for my second paper. So, you have to spend a lot of time writing a paper and I suggest when you do it, do it carefully with a critical thinking. You've got to make sure that you have enough information and be prepared to do more experiments if needed. I have to remind you that plagiarism is not a good idea as most reviewer can detect it. Remember they are the expert and I'm sure they are fully aware of previous and current papers in the area of their research expertise.
As a young researcher, you might ask whether to publish 2-3 papers of your research in low impact factor journal or higher impact factor journal. I think it depend to your work, in Malaysia the question is always how many papers have you published? In the UK, in which journal have you published? My strategy at the moment is......well it depend on my results really . I am aiming for at least 2 publications. I still think I can get another two publications from my Msc. thesis.
Anyway, back to the manuscript, sorry but I have rejected that paper. Ohh..the second reviewer also rejected that paper :-)
I remember, I took about 6 months before my first paper been accepted and more or less the same time for my second paper. So, you have to spend a lot of time writing a paper and I suggest when you do it, do it carefully with a critical thinking. You've got to make sure that you have enough information and be prepared to do more experiments if needed. I have to remind you that plagiarism is not a good idea as most reviewer can detect it. Remember they are the expert and I'm sure they are fully aware of previous and current papers in the area of their research expertise.
As a young researcher, you might ask whether to publish 2-3 papers of your research in low impact factor journal or higher impact factor journal. I think it depend to your work, in Malaysia the question is always how many papers have you published? In the UK, in which journal have you published? My strategy at the moment is......well it depend on my results really . I am aiming for at least 2 publications. I still think I can get another two publications from my Msc. thesis.
Anyway, back to the manuscript, sorry but I have rejected that paper. Ohh..the second reviewer also rejected that paper :-)
