1/As Author

I published my undergraduate research project in African Journal of Food Science, a low impact factor journal. The editor only pointed out that my sample size was small and went ahead to publish my paper. I did not receive any comments from reviewers. The process was smooth but I lost my money in the process. I did not know any better. The only consolation is the scientific community considered the worth of the science in my terribly written paper.

I published in Journal of Chromatography A, Environmental Pollution and Water Research. The Impact Factor of these journals ranges from 4 to 7, very high in my research interest. Before submission to JCA, EP, and WR, the manuscripts went under 5, 7 and 12 rounds of revision. I got a major revision in JCA an EP and moderate revision in WR.

A reviewer pointed out a flaw in my argument in my paper for JCA. Fortunately, the week I received the comment a paper was published that explained the phenomenon. I rewrote the results and discussion section. The editor accepted the paper two days after I submitted my revised paper. For the water research paper, a reviewer pointed out an interesting section I could include. I did that and I think the paper is in a better shape as a result. 

Lessons:  

2/ As a reviewer

I reviewed a paper that was terribly written for a certain journal. I pointed out the poor logic in the arguments and the poor experimental design. I liked the idea the authors had, but it was poorly executed. They had to redo the experiments actually. A week after submitting my review, I received a comment from the Editor, "Accept with minor revision."

A few weeks ago, I reviewed a paper for Science of the Total Environment, a fast rising journal in environmental science with Impact Factor of 4.9. The paper was terribly written. Brilliant idea, poor writing. I was not surprised when the editor rejected the paper.

Lesson:

3/ As a researcher

I applied for a fellowship and I was one of the many candidates who couldn't make it past the first round. I had 3 publications in high impact factor journals and the other candidates had 10-15 papers in low impact factor journals. The candidates were selected ahead of me because the committee said they were more productive. 

In another instance, I was rejected because my h-index was deemed low. My first publication in a reputable journal was in 2014, the last I checked the article was performing above 75% of papers in that journal. Candidates who started publishing 10 years earlier than I were selected. Obviously, their papers had higher citations than mine.

Lessons: 

1/As Author

I published my undergraduate research project in African Journal of Food Science, a low impact factor journal. The editor only pointed out that my sample size was small and went ahead to publish my paper. I did not receive any comments from reviewers. The process was smooth but I lost my money in the process. I did not know any better. The only consolation is the scientific community considered the worth of the science in my terribly written paper.

I published in Journal of Chromatography A, Environmental Pollution and Water Research. The Impact Factor of these journals ranges from 4 to 7, very high in my research interest. Before submission to JCA, EP, and WR, the manuscripts went under 5, 7 and 12 rounds of revision. I got a major revision in JCA an EP and moderate revision in WR.

A reviewer pointed out a flaw in my argument in my paper for JCA. Fortunately, the week I received the comment a paper was published that explained the phenomenon. I rewrote the results and discussion section. The editor accepted the paper two days after I submitted my revised paper. For the water research paper, a reviewer pointed out an interesting section I could include. I did that and I think the paper is in a better shape as a result. 

Lessons:  

2/ As a reviewer

I reviewed a paper that was terribly written for a certain journal. I pointed out the poor logic in the arguments and the poor experimental design. I liked the idea the authors had, but it was poorly executed. They had to redo the experiments actually. A week after submitting my review, I received a comment from the Editor, "Accept with minor revision."

A few weeks ago, I reviewed a paper for Science of the Total Environment, a fast rising journal in environmental science with Impact Factor of 4.9. The paper was terribly written. Brilliant idea, poor writing. I was not surprised when the editor rejected the paper.

Lesson:

3/ As a researcher

I applied for a fellowship and I was one of the many candidates who couldn't make it past the first round. I had 3 publications in high impact factor journals and the other candidates had 10-15 papers in low impact factor journals. The candidates were selected ahead of me because the committee said they were more productive. 

In another instance, I was rejected because my h-index was deemed low. My first publication in a reputable journal was in 2014, the last I checked the article was performing above 75% of papers in that journal. Candidates who started publishing 10 years earlier than I were selected. Obviously, their papers had higher citations than mine.

Lessons: 

This is a very helpful question for young researchers.   In addition to the excellent answer by @Edmond Sanganyado, there is a bit more to add.

Author:  As an author, I focus on results (theorems) that pave the way towards the solution of a problem.

Authoring lesson: In writing a paper, it is helpful to illustrate each new result.

Reviewer: As a reviewer, I look closely at how a new approach solves well-known problems.

Reviewer lesson: Suspend judgement until the gist of a new approach is well-understood.

Researcher: As a researcher, a good approach is to maintain handwritten notes on a daily basis.   With pencil and paper, one has maximum freedom in expressing an idea either with text and drawings.

Researcher lesson: Revisit classical works and stay current with ongoing work by others.

Brilliant and very helpful answers from both of you. You were both explicit enough to give excellent and concise information required in this regard to help so many.

Dear Dr. Edmond Sanganyado,

Thank you very much for your contribution in this discussion and for providing these interesting experiences with scientific publishing / reviewing. I greatly appreciates the important lessons you stated. It's clear that each experience linked to this issue lead to a major lesson which is quite important for a researcher's / reviewer's career progress.

Best,

Ramzi

Dear Professor James Peters,  

Thank you very much for your contribution in this discussion, I'm so pleased to hear from you.  I greatly appreciates sharing your rich experience as researcher / reviewer and the excellent lessons you provided, which will be helpful for researchers.

Best,

Ramzi