We occasionally lose track of this fact. Our stance towards the reviewers of our manuscripts can be fairly antagonistic. After all, we wouldn’t have submitted the dang thing in the first place if we didn’t think it was ready for publication as-is, right?

It doesn’t help that one of the manuscripts we have out right now has drawn reviewer fire over some of the more maddening reasons. Basically a difference of opinion on interpretation, background and context- my view (even apart from my own manuscripts, thank you!) is that if the data are sound, well analyzed and placed in a context that is supported it is not my place to hold up publication because my interpretation differs. So these kind of “discussions” during peer review don’t really please me.

Another paper we have in the submission process is another matter. I have a little less than usual confidence that we know what is what when it comes to our findings. I am really keen on seeing what reviewers have to say about it. I am looking forward to what I think is the start of a pretty cool discussion. Hopefully in the sense of additional data, models and papers resulting because I have a sense this little subarea is about to take off. Not that we’re going to be the spark, mind you. Just that we’re getting into some stuff that a bunch of other usual-suspect labs can do and have all the same reasons that we do to delve into the questions. There are, however, a whole lot of ways to get into the question and model the behavior.

We took one approach and I am pretty interested in what the reviewers are going to think. Will they buy that our kewl effect is actually interesting? Will they come up with a whole ‘nother context in which it should be framed or interpreted or do they sign up for our view on the phenomenon?

Can’t wait for the reviews to come in on this one…..