Notices of the American Mathematical Society
Welcome to the Notices of the American Mathematical Society.
With support from AMS membership, we are pleased to share the journal with the global mathematical community.
PDFLINK |
Dear Early Career
Dear EC: I just received a bad referee report. What do I do?
—Confused and Depressed Author
Dear Confused and Depressed Author,
Receiving a dissatisfactory or bad referee report is disheartening. Whether you were hoping to have your work published in a particular journal or wanting to hear some positive feedback on a project that you worked hard on, receiving negative comments or even critical feedback can be disappointing. Even so, it seems that being successful inevitably comes with some rejection and criticism. It may come in the form of rejection of a grant proposal, critical feedback from a teaching evaluation, or a less-than-glowing referee report. The question is, can you accept this as part of the job, learn from it, and move on without taking it personally?
Let me first acknowledge you for putting your work out there. It takes dedication and effort to work on a project from start to finish, and you did it. Well, at least you almost did. Maybe this is where some of the disappointment lies. The work is often not over after you submit your article to a journal. Frequently, there is a long waiting period to hear back, and after you do hear back, there is a need to revise your article.
Ordinarily, a referee’s comments can be very helpful. This person has spent time reading your article and providing feedback, likely with very little acknowledgement or incentive. For this, we may find some gratitude toward the referee. Different people have different communication methods, some more kind and effective than others, and on occasion you may get an especially grumpy, dismissive, or disgruntled referee. So, how do you make the most out of this situation when it occurs?
When you receive criticism, a natural tendency is to want to defend oneself and to justify why the other person is wrong, and you are right. This is fine; do this for 24–48 hours in your own head or with your friends and family, but then it is time to move to the next phase.
Try to extract the meaningful parts of the report. Again, this person spent their time reading your article, and they may have some feedback that you can use to improve it. Read through line-by-line and find the pieces of advice that you can act on. Maybe an argument needs to be rewritten, or your article would benefit from a stronger introduction or the use of more examples. If you are having trouble with “extracting the good,” reach out to a trusted friend or colleague who can read the report and offer an outside perspective while being supportive. Sometimes our own ego gets in the way of hearing criticism. Perhaps your colleague will think the report is not as bad as you initially perceived and help you find the pieces of useful actionable advice that can be gleaned from the report. On the other hand, maybe the referee is just wrong about your work, and at least you will have made the effort to thoroughly process their feedback.
You may need to resubmit the article to another journal. There are journals that will publish articles in all mathematical subfields, while others are more specialized. In the future, it can be helpful to come up with a backup journal in advance of the time of submission. This can be helpful when you receive a rejection with a referee report that you disagree with. Having a backup plan laid out in advance can prevent you (or a collaborator) from making an emotional decision about the future of the paper*.
A colleague told me a story along these lines. When she was a postdoc and submitted her first paper not based on her thesis, the referee wrote that the paper wasn’t interesting because it used the same techniques that she had used in the paper based on her thesis. She told me that she felt so upset that she threw away the paper. Years later, she regretted that she had not submitted the article to a lower-level journal.
Either way, even if you submit to another journal, there is a chance that the paper could be sent to the same referee. I say this not to be discouraging, but rather to encourage you to address the referee’s comments to the best of your ability before resubmitting. You may also take this opportunity to read your paper again. We often gain a fresh perspective after putting a project aside for some time and returning to it later.
You may also take this opportunity to revisit your introduction. Sometimes in the rush of finishing a paper, the introduction can get neglected. A common theme in rejections that I have received is that I did not make enough effort in the introduction to explain why the result is interesting because I mistakenly expected the paper to go to a referee who already knew the area pretty well. Months after submitting the paper, you may be in a better position to reread the introduction with a critical eye and significantly improve it.
Finally, remember you are not alone. We all receive negative feedback and rejection from time to time. We also all give feedback. See if you can use this experience to deepen your ability to understand and share the feelings of others who may be in a similar position. When it is your turn to be in the referee-role, see if you can be kind and effective in your communication and find some good things to point out about the paper in addition to offering critical feedback.
To your success,
—Early Career editors
* Please see our Dear EC from August 2024 for more on the topic of deciding where to submit a research paper.