After numerous efforts to get some of my research papers published, I was biased about peer review processes and concluded that only new research areas were published. However, at this time of despair, a colleague of mine suggested the Peer review: the Nuts and Bolts workshop organised by Sense about Science in London and supported by their free guide written by and for early career researchers: download Peer Review: the Nuts and Bolts! Listening to guest panellists from academic publishing, the mask of peer review was removed. I learnt a few things:

1. Peer review is NOT perfect: I realised that editors were as normal as myself, receive numerous submissions daily, work under pressure and have to judge each submission based on article relevance and novelty. These people work under pressure, and peer reviewers are volunteers who commit their time to providing feedback comments. Therefore, when a research paper is rejected, that does not mean that the research submission is totally useless.

2. Major correction is a GOOD thing: Due to high numbers of submission, when a manuscript is returned with a statement which suggests that the paper could be accepted subject to major corrections, that is actually good news. Why? A manuscript subjected to major correction has been selected out of numerous competing submissions. While the feedback comments may not be favourable, by working through each comment, you might realise that the manuscript is improved.

3. PERCEPTION of your research or endorsement? Peer review does not endorse your research; it provides a chance for others to critically review it, increases your research credibility, identifies how your work is perceived by others and serves as quality control on your paper. Peer review is an external opinion independent of the editorial team.

Other submissions of yours are IMPORTANT too and do not have to be purely for academic research. EVIDENCE is what matters. For example, I have carried out numerous science public outreach activities and engagement that have been delivered out of pure interest but never published. I now know better that every piece of published research advances your contribution to knowledge. That also includes all forms of activities that produce evidence such as case studies or outreach engagement reports

On the basis of the points above, I made the following resolution:

1. I have been empowered to complete and submit a manuscript that has been pending re-submission for a long time. I have produced draft blogs and reports on various outreach activities, which, until recently, I had not given thought to publishing.

2. I agree that everyone in academia is trying their best to get published. The competition to publish is fierce. However, I now understand that there is a need to keep trying and not to give up.

3. By accepting that consistent corrections and rejections are painful, it has enabled me to think again and ask myself the following questions: What do I want to communicate and why is it important? How serious are my outcomes and what impact can my work contribute to my readers? By working through my answers, I gradually will develop the confidence to publish excellent papers and support peer review processes when called upon.

As an ECR, you can find out about your part in the peer review process and how it serves the public interest. Sense about Science are running another Peer Review: the Nuts and Bolts workshop at Glasgow Caledonian University on Friday, 18th October. Keep an eye out for opportunities to attend these workshops throughout the year by signing up to Sense about Science’s Voice of Young Science network. Join now and don’t miss out on the opportunity to find out about research quality, the peer review process and how you can get involved.

Cecilia Medupin, Lecturer, Faculty of Science & Engineering, University of Manchester, UK

@cemedupin