Revisions

One of the things I learned early on in my career was that scientists never do anything once. In fact, my very first marine ecology project after college was an analysis of seafloor images from the high Arctic, and my advisor gave me a clear message: do it twice. I spent weeks going through the image set, just to go back to the beginning and start over - but you know what, our analysis was much better for it. Inevitably, every scientific project has a point when you have to start completely over. Every single one. 

I'm at that point with one of my projects right now. It's not quite "two steps forward, one step back" but something much more complicated - more like "three steps backward, twirl around, and head off in a different direction." You see, one of the papers I submitted for publication last fall came back with reviews attached, and the editor has asked me to make substantial revisions. 

Revising a paper is never my favorite thing to do. Reviewer comments can be harsh or confusing, and sometimes, reviewers disagree with each other, leaving me with no reasonable way to make everyone happy. In this case, I have two reviewers who viewed my paper favorably and two who were more critical. My challenge will be to keep the best parts of the paper intact while addressing the elements that were criticized. 

By the time I reach the end of a revision and have responded to every reviewer comment, I always have to admit my paper is better. That's why we have peer review - so we can improve each others' work. And trust me, scientists don't let each other get away with anything. 

The revision is a lot of work, but I'm sure it will turn out well. I'm looking forward to seeing my paper improve.