4 ms·

>Rejection is usually a case of 'I'm not sufficiently sure this is good enough given the information I have in front of me' Last week there were a few articles

>Rejection is usually a case of 'I'm not sufficiently sure this is good enough given the information I have in front of me' Last week there were a few articles about the rejection of numerous articles/papers that would go on to win the Nobel Prize. Obviously this is a very small set, but goes to show how easily Nobel Prize winning papers could have been lost to history. The rejections include everything from: -reviewers not liking the name of the paper (politics/subjectivity at its worst...I think the journal was trying to take an active role in the propagation of the prevailing terms regarding the subject matter) -Not the right journal for the topic (quasi-subjective and potentially political) -a backlog of articles to be published (maybe a little subjective, not sure if the examiner(s)/publisher(s) could have shuffled things around, but that would get back into subjectivity/politics) In most cases, as you can imagine, the authors were disheartened and frustrated. Some never even published again as a result of these experiences. To me it just makes me wonder how many papers/articles could/would/should have won the Nobel Prize but for some rejection, and as a result how much time/effort has been lost.

chrisseaton 7y ago
Short of unlimited space to include all articles anyone possibly submits without any standard required, what do you think people should do instead except apply some subjective editorial judgement? It wouldn't be a journal if someone wasn't applying judgement - it'd just be a vast paper repository which isn't really the same thing.
mcguire 7y ago
"Obviously this is a very small set?" Nobel Prizes, by definition, are given for groundbreaking results. Almost by definition, most "groundbreaking" results are wrong. Even given everything else as equal, it is unsurprising that Nobel-winning results are rejected at least once.
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  To the best of my knowledge 8 papers were rejected that ultimately won the prize...over 500 Nobel Prizes have been awarded so I am not sure why you expect papers to get rejected at least once. Again the basis of these rejections were not on the merits (or results) as you suggest, rather, because of issues with names of the papers, backlog, and deferring to other journals which may be better fits for the topic.
andrepd 7y ago
The rejections include everything from: -reviewers not liking the name of the paper (politics/subjectivity at its worst...I think the journal was trying to take an active role in the propagation of the prevailing terms regarding the subject matter) Not a rejection then, just a suggestion to change a shitty and confusing title to a better one. Do that and you're golden. -Not the right journal for the topic (quasi-subjective and potentially political) How is "your research is not into the topic of this journal" a "political" opinion?
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  >How is "your research is not into the topic of this journal" a "political" opinion? Are you familiar at all with the 8 papers that were rejected and went on to win the Nobel Prize? Example: Fermi's paper on weak interaction...rejected by Nature. The rejection was on the basis "to far removed from reality to be of interest to readers", it was only the discovery of 1 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature. It appears the rejection on this basis are often just a form rejection in many cases that allows the journal to reject a paper outright rather than provide any explanation/feedback. Then again I suppose nothing like a reviewer being able to point to a Nobel Prize winner and chuckle to themselves that this person isn't even smart enough to identify the proper journal to publish their work in.
rjf72 7y ago
The paper is irrelevant. It's about the discovery. And a person who makes a Nobel-worthy discovery is generally not going to go "Dang, didn't get published. Guess I'll move on." Extreme success tends to involve some extreme personalities with a very high frequency. Einstein, as one of the best examples, wrote his initial revolutionary papers in his spare time while working as lower tier assistant inspector at a patent office because he could find no university that would take him on as a researcher. Even at the patent office he was passed over for promotion due a perception of inability. Suffice to say, he wasn't especially concerned with what other people thought about his capability.

chrisseaton 7y ago

Short of unlimited space to include all articles anyone possibly submits without any standard required, what do you think people should do instead except apply some subjective editorial judgement? It wouldn't be a journal if someone wasn't applying judgement - it'd just be a vast paper repository which isn't really the same thing.

mcguire 7y ago

"Obviously this is a very small set?" Nobel Prizes, by definition, are given for groundbreaking results. Almost by definition, most "groundbreaking" results are wrong. Even given everything else as equal, it is unsurprising that Nobel-winning results are rejected at least once.

throwaway_law 7y ago
To the best of my knowledge 8 papers were rejected that ultimately won the prize...over 500 Nobel Prizes have been awarded so I am not sure why you expect papers to get rejected at least once. Again the basis of these rejections were not on the merits (or results) as you suggest, rather, because of issues with names of the papers, backlog, and deferring to other journals which may be better fits for the topic.

andrepd 7y ago

The rejections include everything from: -reviewers not liking the name of the paper (politics/subjectivity at its worst...I think the journal was trying to take an active role in the propagation of the prevailing terms regarding the subject matter) Not a rejection then, just a suggestion to change a shitty and confusing title to a better one. Do that and you're golden. -Not the right journal for the topic (quasi-subjective and potentially political) How is "your research is not into the topic of this journal" a "political" opinion?

throwaway_law 7y ago
>How is "your research is not into the topic of this journal" a "political" opinion? Are you familiar at all with the 8 papers that were rejected and went on to win the Nobel Prize? Example: Fermi's paper on weak interaction...rejected by Nature. The rejection was on the basis "to far removed from reality to be of interest to readers", it was only the discovery of 1 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature. It appears the rejection on this basis are often just a form rejection in many cases that allows the journal to reject a paper outright rather than provide any explanation/feedback. Then again I suppose nothing like a reviewer being able to point to a Nobel Prize winner and chuckle to themselves that this person isn't even smart enough to identify the proper journal to publish their work in.

rjf72 7y ago

The paper is irrelevant. It's about the discovery. And a person who makes a Nobel-worthy discovery is generally not going to go "Dang, didn't get published. Guess I'll move on." Extreme success tends to involve some extreme personalities with a very high frequency. Einstein, as one of the best examples, wrote his initial revolutionary papers in his spare time while working as lower tier assistant inspector at a patent office because he could find no university that would take him on as a researcher. Even at the patent office he was passed over for promotion due a perception of inability. Suffice to say, he wasn't especially concerned with what other people thought about his capability.