July Research!

[Sun_Worshiper]

These are summer goals (some will probably spill into fall), so I don't plan to get all of them done by the end of July:

• Finish draft of paper #1 with colleagues and submit to journal
• Finish draft of paper #2 and submit to journal (or figure out how to revamp it, if I decide I'm not happy with it yet while finalizing draft)
• Revise paper #3, which was rejected in June, and submit to journal
• Make progress on paper #4 with colleague
• Start putting together dataset for paper #5 with colleague
• Go through IRB for paper #6 with colleagues and make some progress on the framework/data collection
• Start outlining invited book chapter

IRB has been approved

[Parasaurolophus]

Will try to do some of August Chapter today. Lots of emailing left, however, and tons of editorial stuff.

[mamselle]

Goals:

1) Ppt:More slides done, ref's found, streamlined/cleaned-up flow of narrative line. - Two more slides done and good notes to do 2 more from tomorrow

2) Article: More footnotes edited, ref's found, more MS located online and comparisons made. - none today because...

3) Do N/P entries and figure out how to mount online files to pass off to them - DID ALL the entries, figured out two entry protocol problems, and started cleaning up files to mount

One student in 1/2 hour, time to scoot towards Zoombie status.

M.

[darkstarrynight]

Today was a good day! My article came out finally! The news outlet that interviewed me sent me a preview of the story on my research. I met with my department chair in person in my new office. Hu offered me some opportunities for service to help me with my goal for full some day. Hu complimented my research successes, which is really nice, and we ran through what my sabbatical application might include so it will be of interest for the dean to approve.

I am going to call the student who applied to be my research assistant tomorrow and offer hu the scholarship! I cannot wait to get started on that. Also, the revision I finished yesterday was reviewed by my co-authors and I guess it was so good one of them tweeted that hu appreciated collaborating with me and liked the revisions. I did not make any progress on the manuscript due 9/1 but I will get back to it tomorrow hopefully.

[Parasaurolophus]

Will try to do some of August Chapter today. Lots of emailing left, however, and tons of editorial stuff.

Nope. The day was wasted on somebody else's problems, which have somehow become my problems, too.

[Parasaurolophus]

Probably nothing doing today, unfortunately. Busy day of other crap ahead. Sigh.

[darkstarrynight]

Just offered the scholarship to the student who will support my research project and hu accepted, yay! I also found 10 new articles to possibly strengthen the manuscript due 9/1 today. The revision due 8/8 got submitted today. Onward!

[Faith786]

July goals:
-1. Update CV to reflect Google Scholar citation count, h-index, and i10 index metrics
-2. Update CV to reflect ResearchGate score
-3. Update CV to reflect Publons review metrics
-4. R&R due July 4 (late!)
-5. read ch. 9 July 10 (late!)
-6. read ch. 10 July 10 (late!)
-7. read ch. 11 July 10 (late!)
-8. email CV to for minor research appointment
-9. add team grant application to CV;
-10. update and email CV for team grant application
-11. write reflection of article #11 for 2021 project
-12. write reflection of article #12 for 2021 project
-13. write reflection of article #13 for 2021 project
-14. Read/review/summarize relevant paper 11. to add to research library for 2021 project
-15. Read/review/summarize relevant paper 12. to add to research library for 2021 project
-16. Read/review/summarize relevant paper 13. to add to research library for 2021 project
-17. respond to email request for Zoom meeting for research collaboration
-18. research discussion July 19
-19. read ch. 12 July 18 (late!)
-20. read ch. 13 July 18 (late!)
-21. read ch. 14 July 18 (late!)
-22. read ch. 15
-23. read ch. 17
-24. read ch. 18
-peer review 2 new papers
-follow up email conference organizers about request for research paper presentation format
-write another page for item #4 (book chapter) due late July 2021 (now at 6,000 words)
-update chart with dates, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sources, references
-summarize timeline chart [drafted in ppt slide], upload p research documents to secure website-make chart 2 with dates, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sources, references

Short-term/ongoing goals:
-Try to stay alive, keep calm, and carry on while COVID-19 seems to be going away (finally!) so that research can continue
-Continue drafting item #4 (book chapter) with reading/review of up-to-date literature
-read, revise and email myself item #5 (s manuscript) and get it down to <20-25 pages

Long-term goals:
-apply for research funding

N(complete)=20

[Faith786]

July goals:
-1. Update CV to reflect Google Scholar citation count, h-index, and i10 index metrics
-2. Update CV to reflect ResearchGate score
-3. Update CV to reflect Publons review metrics
-4. R&R due July 4 (late!)
-5. read ch. 9 July 10 (late!)
-6. read ch. 10 July 10 (late!)
-7. read ch. 11 July 10 (late!)
-8. email CV to for minor research appointment
-9. add team grant application 1 to CV
-10. update and email CV for team grant application
-11. write reflection of article #11 for 2021 project
-12. write reflection of article #12 for 2021 project
-13. write reflection of article #13 for 2021 project
-14. Read/review/summarize relevant paper 11. to add to research library for 2021 project
-15. Read/review/summarize relevant paper 12. to add to research library for 2021 project
-16. Read/review/summarize relevant paper 13. to add to research library for 2021 project
-17. respond to email request for Zoom meeting for research collaboration
-18. research discussion July 19
-19. read ch. 12 July 18 (late!)
-20. read ch. 13 July 18 (late!)
-21. read ch. 14 July 18 (late!)
-22. read ch. 15
-23. read ch. 17
-24. read ch. 18
-25. add team grant application 2 to CV
-peer review 2 new papers
-follow up email conference organizers about request for research paper presentation format
-write another page for item #4 (book chapter) due late July 2021 (now at 6,000 words)
-26. update chart with dates, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sources, references
-summarize timeline chart [drafted in ppt slide], upload p research documents to secure website-make chart 2 with dates, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sources, references

Short-term/ongoing goals:
-Try to stay alive, keep calm, and carry on while COVID-19 seems to be going away (finally!) so that research can continue
-Continue drafting item #4 (book chapter) with reading/review of up-to-date literature
-read, revise and email myself item #5 (s manuscript) and get it down to <20-25 pages

Long-term goals:
-apply for research funding

N(complete)=26

[mamselle]

Notes and ideas this AM for more slides from my readings - done.

Now to write 'em up, do the images, and get more article footnotes reduced on the other project.

M.

[ergative]

Reviews
Frontiers review
Other Review
Read paper for third review
Write other review

ML project
Design dataset structure
Construct V parameters
Construct M parameters
Construct S parameters
Combine parameters into full set of combinatorial blueprints
Build dataset objects--

ET project
Look at ancient submission and reviews and start planning revisions.

advising
Write that script

Well, that's not so bad for July!

With respect to the ET project, I pulled out the last set of reviews from the most recent rejection, and I'm still really mad about it. Reviewer 1 liked the paper, but had lots of great questions that I could easily have answered. Reviewer 2 hated the paper, but also didn't read it, because their severe concerns about confounds in the design shows they never even got to Figure 2 where I showed exactly how I avoided all those confounds that gave them the vapors. Also, Dr Editor-in-Chief, Reviewer 2's concerns about the statistics were nothing more than 'I have never seen GAMMs before and can't understand them, and also I didn't read the bit where you said you got the same results with ANOVAs and growth curve analysis.' So your rejection on the basis of the bad design and poor statistics is based on Reviewer 2, who didn't read the paper and was self-professedly unqualified to raise any concerns with the stats to begin with.

I'm so mad at this rejection! I'm still so deeply, profoundly, mad.

[mamselle]

Find a way to answer Reviewer 1's questions pleasantly, and find a way to say what you said about Reviewer 2 and the Editor in a polite, professional way and then let it sit.

Also see if you can tip a note earlier in the piece that you will answer the "I can't-read-this-la-la-la" issue sooner, the way a lawyer does in their opening remarks to the jury..."I will show that...." so they don't stop before the answer is given because they don't know it's coming.

Old army adage, "Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em, tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em" might apply there, at least for that one issue.

If it's outright rejected, at least you'll have worked through what's needed to send it elsewhere; if it were a revise and re-submit, that's what you'd do anyway, so no time lost.

But I do resonate with the anger.

I still have this one article, that.....

M. 

[Faith786]

With respect to the ET project, I pulled out the last set of reviews from the most recent rejection, and I'm still really mad about it. Reviewer 1 liked the paper, but had lots of great questions that I could easily have answered. Reviewer 2 hated the paper, but also didn't read it, because their severe concerns about confounds in the design shows they never even got to Figure 2 where I showed exactly how I avoided all those confounds that gave them the vapors. Also, Dr Editor-in-Chief, Reviewer 2's concerns about the statistics were nothing more than 'I have never seen GAMMs before and can't understand them, and also I didn't read the bit where you said you got the same results with ANOVAs and growth curve analysis.' So your rejection on the basis of the bad design and poor statistics is based on Reviewer 2, who didn't read the paper and was self-professedly unqualified to raise any concerns with the stats to begin with.

I'm so mad at this rejection! I'm still so deeply, profoundly, mad.

Was this a single-blind or double-blind review process?
And why is it always Reviewer 2 who is problematic?

I can comprehend your anger and I completely empathize.
I had a very bad experience with a single-blind review (they knew who I was but I didn't know them). Two reviewers, 1 and 3 accepted my paper, but this so-called Reviewer 2 was just unprofessional, was lazy enough to have a two-sentence review, and did not bother to read the second set of my revisions (and they just said the revisions were not clear to them along with one more sentence that repeated their original review).  The editor just agreed with them, I guess because they don't have the time and resources to deal with it; it was a high-impact journal that receives hundreds of submissions a week. When I responded that the revisions were done, (I did mention the numerous spelling and grammar mistakes in Reviewer 2's two-sentence review), it rubbed them the wrong way (I knew somehow it wouldn't change the outcome but at least I could communicate how awful Review 2 was).

Lesson: if you have an a**h*** Reviewer 2 from a single-blind process, no matter how much their review sucks, no matter if you respond to/finish their revisions, if they don't  like you, your name, or your institution, power and privilege will get the best of the situation, unfortunately. I submitted to another high impact journal and it looks like it will get accepted, thank God!

[Parasaurolophus]

Report:

For my part, the goals are:

• Finish July R&R (I'll ask for an extension, though).
• Write up most of August Chapter.
• Send a few Book Sections out for feedback (I owe the publisher a bunch of previews in August).
• Touch up the Book Sections I'll send out.

Stretch:

• Write a new Book Section.
• Write another new Book Section.

I didn't finish the R&R, but I got it extended until the end of August, and I got it most of the way done. And I didn't write up most of the August Chapter, but I did the research that needed to be done for it and got it started.

I fell short, but the goals were pretty ambitious. The progress was acceptable.