I came across this blog post from the LSE the other evening discussing the shortcomings of the current financing structure for research in the UK, with further discussion and detail in the associated PNAS paper. Both are well worth a read, with the central narrative outlining how the current competitive structure of funding is serving both science, and society, badly.
This underlies a broader point; academia is full of rejection. Paper submissions are rejected, candidates fail to secure posts in an extremely competitive job market, and grant applications return unfunded. Particularly the first time this occurs, after months of work and careful consideration, it can be soul-destroying.
So how can students prepare themselves for this? The first thing I would recommend is talk to your supervisors and other faculty you know, and ask about their failures. With acceptance rates for papers typically around 20%, and grant applications lower, everyone around you will have had dozens and dozens of rejections. You are not alone, and that is worth reminding yourself again and again and again. This happens to everyone.
It is also important to learn how to make use of rejections. There are a host of reviews online which illustrate some of the more ludicrous responses, but they are the least helpful. Over time you may develop a thicker skin (I have for paper rejections, but am still working on it for unfunded grants); but more importantly is learning how to fail well and take value from the work you have already completed.
Generally speaking, most rejections can be categorised into:
- A rejection that has constructive criticism
- A rejection, which has no basis in evidence
The first thing when receiving a rejection is to work out which category it falls into. If it is the former, great – you now have clear advice on how to make the next submission better. If the latter – you have to decide whether the reviewer has misunderstood the proposal (in which case your narrative needs improving), or if the reviewer is uninformed or wrong. In my experience, it will be the former 9 times out of 10.
If your submission involves some form of rebuttal, there are som concrete things I recommend – all of which I do myself having picked them up over the years. The first thing is to allow yourself to be upset – put for a fixed period. Take a day, put the reviews away, and do something enjoyable; give yourself a break. Then come back, and write two versions of the rebuttal – the first where you vent, express your outrage and the rejection, and deem the reviewers to be incredibly stupid. Then throw that rebuttal in the bin, and write the serious one, which takes the critiques from the reviewers seriously, and engage with the process.
Whether you can submit a rebuttal or not, there are some activities you can undertake to learn from the reviews. The first is to talk to your supervisors, peers, colleagues – and ask for help. If certain sections didn’t work, ask others for ideas on how to address; if the narrative isn’t clear, practice talking it through with someone. It is also worth using two differently-coloured highlighters on the review, using one colour to highlight all the positive comments, and another to highlight the negative comments. Not only does this reinforce the positive aspects, it also ensures you don’t make changes which negatively impact those positive aspects.
As a final summation – I’m a huge believer in celebrating submission alongside acceptance. Submitting a paper or grant is a lot of work, and is challenging; good work will almost always eventually get accepted/funded, but nothing is accepted if it is never submitted.