I don't mind admitting that I have probably had more negative replies than positive ones over my research career with regards to paper submissions. I am probably setting myself up for a fall in saying that as the shouts of 'your research is c**p' begin to resonate. The usual reply to such rejection is to stop feeling sorry for yourself (which normally lasts about a day), follow-up the peer reviewer comments as best you can, and look for another home for the manuscript and start the whole process again.
So it was recently with a short piece I submitted to The Psychologist, the monthly publication of the British Psychological Society (BPS). The manuscript in question was a short review titled 'The psychology of the gut'. It was an attempt to summarise a few areas which seem to crop up quite a lot of this blog with regards to how our gastrointestinal tract (gut) might not necessarily just have a 'digesting food' role and bring it to a wider psychology-related audience. With articles like this recent one from a Psychologist on autism, I do wonder if we perhaps need to update a few people.
To be fair, the psychology/gut submission was always a bit of a long shot for consideration for publication; something discussed with the Editor who was very nice about the whole thing (and no, I'm not just saying that to score Brownie points). There was an option to shorten the piece to a letter for further submission, but I don't think that is for me when there is so much to discuss. So instead I'm going to do something else, and reproduce the article as a link for this post. I know, I know, (i) 'where is the peer-review', and (ii) 'this is a blog not a professional publication'. My answer: so what.
So here is the link to the rejected article.
By writing this piece, I am not turning my back on peer-review and scientific publication; not by any means. But in this day and age when the Internet is power and social media gives everyone a voice, why can't my voice be heard also?