I
thought I would share with you what happens after you have submitted your
research to a scientific journal.
First
you need to make sure you submit your research to the appropriate journal or
you get the big, REJECT. I submitted my Master’s research to a dance medicine
journal about four years ago and got rejected
partially because I was stubborn and didn’t want to make any changes and
partially because the editor wanted me to edit my discussion section down to
crap, then I submitted it last year to a high profile journal and got REJECTED
because it wasn’t complicated enough for them, so I finally submitted it to a
more friendly performing arts journal and it got accepted with minor revisions. I am waiting now to find out
which issue it is going to be in.
I
submitted my female dancer survey to above mentioned dance medicine journal and
heard back that they are accepting
it with major revisions. You may think this is good, but it really is just time
consuming. I got a list of what the reviewers wanted me to change. What is a
reviewer? A reviewer is someone that reads your research to see if it is good
and acceptable for the specific journal. Typically it is someone who does
research in a similar area, however I have heard that the editor of this
journal is just picking people to be reviewers who are not really specialist or
have the appropriate background to be reviewers. Depending on the journal it
would be two to three reviewers per paper and the journal can decide how long
to back log. Also, the reviewing process is blind, so I don’t know who the
reviewers are and they don’t know who wrote the paper. These are some of the
questions/comments I got asked with my red answers:
What is the point of the Tsung and Mulford
reference?
We wanted to include this article as even
though it is a case study because it is the only neck injury in a ballroom
dancer in all the literature.
There is an obvious lack of basic
knowledge of Dance Sport (e.g., the ISDF is the predecessor of the WDSF
(changed name June 19, 2012).
ISDF was changed to WDSF
on 19 June 2011. We are assuming that the readership has no knowledge of DanceSport,
so we are keeping it basic.
Line 40: "Since competitive
couples train together, their training duration is equal; however, their
dancing techniques are gender specific…” That is not correct. It is only valid
for a few dances in that genre. Please describe or correct.
This is correct in
International Modern technique, but could be incorrect in other styles of
DanceSport.
Line 42-49: If this study is on
efficiency-orientated dance sport, what role does the aspect of selection play?
Would couples manage to dance on this level without sufficient movability of
the spine, etc.?
This paragraph is about
how other authors have described International Modern technique.
The discussion needs to be
completely revised. There are numerous aspects that do not apply to the issue
and that are partly inaccurate or wrong medical interpretations.
We are medical experts,
please be specific as to what you think is medically inaccurate.
Line 227-232: That does not belong in the
discussion. The calculations are not clear.
Please be specific of
what does not belong in the discussion. Those are not calculations, they are
ages.
References: should be updated
Please be specific as to
which references should be updated.
I
think you get the idea that the reviewers (specifically #2) thought they were
an expert in DanceSport, but obviously have not read all the research on
DanceSport. My professor made a comment
once how newly graduated PhD’s are usually tougher on students who are
defending their thesis/dissertation. This is probably the case with this
reviewer as well, where this might be the first time they have reviewed a paper
for a scientific journal and they are being tough on me.