The thing is, unless you’ve published in Science a bunch of times already (or your co-authors have), it can be really hard to tell why one paper ends up there vs another. It was a ten year experimental study in Yellowstone related to the effects of wolf reintroduction. My co-authors and I decided to go for it with our paper, and submitted it first to Science. Is one of these a worse misjudgment to make? At the same time, without a lot of experience publishing your own papers, you could easily shoot too high. Jeremy’s first piece of advice in his post was: “Aim as high as you reasonably can.” I absolutely agree– but how do you determine what’s reasonable, as an early career scientist? It’s all too easy to sell yourself short. Rather than add my general philosophy to that discussion, I am going to give a concrete example of one of my papers and its trajectory from first submission to publication. Specifically, the paper I recently blogged about on Yellowstone willows that appeared in ProcB. Check out Jeremy Fox’s advice over at Dynamic Ecology, or Ethan White’s at J abberwocky Ecology, or our very own Nate Hough-Snee’s right here. Now what? Where should you send it? The blogosphere has been humming with discussion on where to submit your papers in the past couple months. And you’ve gotten your co-authors to sign off on it. So, you just finished writing a paper on a really cool project.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |