As a scientist, The Scientist is encouraged to publish his work in peer reviewed journals. That's easier said than done though. It takes a taint-load of work to put together a paper, and then the reviewers tear that shit to pieces.
The boss and I submitted a paper for review in May and got comments back a week or two later. Reviewer one said that parts of my first figure waere redundant based on what others had published, suggested one more experiment, and then made a random comment about a sentence we wrote.
All in all, that's not so bad.
Reviewer two wished I was dead. He needed more in Figure 1, way more. He had fundamental problems with my basic assays and reagents. He (or she I guess) also concluded that the work was so preliminary that it wasn't publishable.
I did 2.5 months of experiments to satisfy the reviewers (basically just #2, [teehee, #2]) and then resubmitted ye olde paper. After 4 weeks of sweating it out, the highly intelligent editors at the Journal of Biological Chemistry decided to publish the hell out of it. Uh YEAH! There's a crappy version here, but a better copy will be available after everything's been proofed.
Now I'm a real scientist like Dr. Snail and the Sciencette who have each published like 50 times.
A Place to Play
2 weeks ago