In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I am looking for advice on what to do about a paper that I've tried to get published for years and is, frankly, kind of ruining my life. For context, this paper is the biggest idea I have and comes out of my dissertation. Every one of my advisors speaks very highly of the paper, so I do think the general idea is quite good and novel. In response to various forms of feedback, however, I have rewritten the paper many times over the years in order to reframe it and the like. I do not yet have a TT job, and I unfortunately seem to take far longer than the average person to rewrite papers. So, the opportunity cost on this one paper has been fairly enormous for my job market prospects. It feels like I may have gotten a TT job by now if I'd only ever had smaller, more publishable ideas and had never come up with the idea for this particular paper.

This summer, I am in the process of rewriting it yet again. Every time I interact with this paper, though, it feels absolutely awful on a visceral and spiritual level. I think it has become something of a symbol at this point of my failures thus far at making it in academic philosophy. Given that, I would love to just abandon it, especially for the time being. Since I've already sunk so much time into it, though, I worry it will look bad if my CV doesn't soon have that paper in the publications list, which is currently too light for my years since defending. Given that, I'm tempted to just send it off somewhere now in its former version, but that would also mean that the past month or so that I've been working on the new version during my precious teaching-free summer time will have been a complete waste. That said, every time I seriously work on this paper I get very close to quitting my teaching job and leaving the profession altogether.

Any advice (or commiseration) would be greatly appreciated!

I'm sorry the OP is dealing with this. I know how it is, so I deeply empathize. I actually had a paper just like this: it was from my dissertation, and everywhere I presented it, people told me it was great. Yet, journals repeatedly rejected it (14 times, if I recall). So I rewrote it over and over again (about 60 times, if my memory recalls). It tortured me–and yes, like the OP, I seriously considered leaving the profession. But you know what: I kept at it, ended up publishing it (albeit in a new-ish and pretty out-of-the-way journal), and … it's my most-cited philosophy paper. Since then, I've published several follow-up pieces (in some well-ranked journals) building on it. 

Obviously, I'm just one person–but my first piece of advice to the OP would be this: keep at it as long as you're able to and so long as you're convinced the paper is strong (I've dropped a number of papers after referees convinced me they were irreparably flawed–but that never happened with the paper above, which is why I kept at it). My second piece of advice, though, would be this: don't put all of your eggs in one basket. Work on it, send it out. But work on other things too. It took me 6 years to publish the piece mentioned above. If that had been the only thing I worked on (let alone published), I don't think a TT job would have ever been in the offing for me. So, I'd advise the OP: finish up the new draft as expeditiously as you can, and then get to work on something else (or something new!).

Do any other readers have any help or commiseration to offer?

Posted in , ,

13 responses to “Repeatedly-rejected papers torturing you?”

  1. Young SLAC Prof

    Practical advice: stop rewriting the paper and just continue to send it out. I wouldn’t bother investing the time/effort of a rewrite every time (or every other time) the paper is rejected. I have never had a paper rejected more than 3 or 4 times before acceptance. But unless I get helpful comments from reviewers, I just send the sucker right back out. If you do this, the paper continues to be active/have a fighting chance and you can try your best to forget about it while it is under review…until it gets accepted!

  2. Ideas and babies

    I would recommend dropping the paper. I have had a fine career – numerous publications, reasonably well cited (over 2,500 times) – and I have tossed a few papers over the years. They are only ideas, not babies. Once I had a great idea, but I did not have the means to execute it. And I knew I did not. But after two years not even thinking about it, I developed a way to resolve the problem. I then wrote the paper up in a relatively short time, and then published it (in a non-philosophy journal). Set the paper down for two years …

  3. Anony

    I agree with Young SLAC prof.
    Unless the comments that I receive are strong enough to cause me to think that the paper NEEDS to be re-written, I do not make major changes.
    The issues that one reviewer has are highly unlikely to match the next reviewer’s issues. If you keep adjusting your paper to adapt to the last reviewer’s comments, there is a chance that this will actually hurt your paper’s chances. So, only make changes that YOU are convinced need to be made.
    If you are confident with what you have, just keep submitting it.

  4. Rabbit

    Sorry to hear about your stress over this OP. I don’t have direct advice about whether to publish, but several thoughts about how you might mentally reframe what you view as lost time:
    -Only those people who know you really well likely know how much time you have spent on this still unpublished paper. Search committees will be judging you based on what does appear on your CV, not based on how much time you spent on an unpublished project (how would they know this?)
    -Every academic has some projects that will never see the light of day. A single idea not getting published isn’t any kind of career failure.
    -Don’t fall for the sunk cost fallacy. Consider your overall wellbeing and productivity in a forward-looking way. I.e., what uses of your time now will lead to a sustainable career and more publications?
    -If it’s important to you that you publish this idea but you are having trouble working on it now, you can always set it aside for a few years – there’s (likely) no external deadline to publish it. Having developed but not yet published ideas is actually beneficial in some circumstances (e.g., it allows you to lay out concrete future plans when applying for jobs).
    -If you don’t want to keep working on the paper but think the idea is valuable enough to share, you can always upload it to archives as a preprint. Then, the paper will be available for people to read and cite, even if it cannot be listed on your CV as a publication.

  5. anon

    Sorry, I know this can be painful.
    I agree with Young SLAC Prof. Just work on it less. Just keeping putting it out there, and focus your writing time on producing and publishing additional manuscripts. This is a better way of filling up the CV than just pouring more work into this old paper.
    Also, following up on Marcus’s comment about an out of the way journal, absolutely send this manuscript to “lower ranked” places as time goes on, if you haven’t already. Especially the ones that publish more pages per year.

  6. Persistent Submitter

    It’s funny how this happens. I’m trying to get a paper published that I think is my best work, but it has been rejected more times now than any other paper I’ve written. At the same time, I’ve had two papers accepted on first submission within the last year, but they seem to me less significant and interesting than the paper that keeps getting rejected.
    My approach so far resembles the advice from Young SLAC Prof: I just keep sending it out, sometimes with minor tweaks. One reason for this is that, despite the rejections, I’ve received several really positive referee reports, which has confirmed my belief in the paper. Many of the negative reports have also been unhelpful and haven’t given me reason to radically revise the paper.
    Of course, there might be a point at which I have to do so if it keeps getting rejected, but I’m staying the course for now. I’m also working on other stuff while my current paper is under review so that I have eggs in multiple baskets.

  7. Cap

    Cut your losses and send off the last “final” version you have, and then work on something else. You are tormenting yourself for no good reason as the publishing process is not that predictable anyway

  8. Michel

    As the others have said, send it off and keep it going in the background while you actively work on other stuff. When it comes back, send it out again. It probably doesn’t need more rewriting, until and unless it gets an R&R.
    FWIW, my most rejected paper went through 12 rejections. I first wrote it in late 2016, and it’s finally coming out… now. It’s a very good paper, but it’s somewhat prescriptive, and that rubbed referees the wrong way. It’s only coming out now because an editor saw it pass through and offered it a place in a book they were putting together. If it weren’t for that, I expect I’d be on to rejection 14 or 15 by now.
    Sometimes you do have to give up on a paper. But if you have good reason to believe it’s good–a D it sounds like you do–then there’s nothing for it but to keep sending it out. You aren’t required to keep rewriting it, though. Past a certain point, the rewrites may we’ll start to make the paper worse.

  9. 22 tires to publish

    I empathize with you. I would say not to give up on the paper, but at the same time don’t spend so much time on it. Only make edits you think are necessary and then go work on something else.
    I had a paper rejected 21 times, but recently accepted on the 22nd try. I know the paper was good (given that it won 2 conference awards, numerous top-notch people have praised it, etc.). Sometimes it’s just unluckiness and you just gotta press on, making edits only when necessary, and sending it off to the next place.

  10. Slacker

    I agree with others that rewriting after each round of reviewer comments is likely not the best use of your time, unless you think a reviewer has made a particularly good point.
    Anecdotally, many philosophers find their biggest or most ambitious or ‘best’ work very hard to place in journals. It may end up as a monograph instead… but that’s a difficult option in your situation. Have you considered sending it to an absolute top-tier journal if you haven’t already? Sometimes the reviewers for eg Phil Review are more able to consider originality and ambition.
    It’s a long-shot of course, but then so are most reputable journals.
    Good luck!

  11. Jakub

    Maybe the reason for these repeated rejections is that the content of the paper is not suitable for publishing as a journal paper. Journals tend to prefer straightforward, analytical arguments rather than complex or multilayered ideas. Anything that cannot be explained within 10 pages doesn’t fit.
    If it were so, rewriting the manuscript could only ruin your original idea.

  12. Framing?

    I agree that it is probably not worth spending more time rewriting it. If you’re done with it, you’re done with it.
    But even so… one thing to keep in mind is framing. I’ve had what I thought (still think) is one of the best papers from my PhD dissertation rejected several times, sometimes with 1 positive and 1 negative review. It’s been very frustrating.
    Then I recently worked on something else and realized I could squeeze a line of thought from that paper into the new project – but frame it as making a very different theoretical contribution by developing newer ideas in a newer debate. And then I got an R&R on first submission (and am currently waiting to hear back about the results ).

  13. OP

    Thanks, everyone, for your advice and commiseration! I really appreciate it.

Leave a Reply to CapCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading