A minor celebration today…I’ve finally had my first paper accepted for publication. As a measure of how long and convoluted this process has been, consider the fact that this is the very same* paper that I discussed in this post. That was written in October 2010, and was titled “A year’s work, lessons learnt”. Which means, according to my calculations, that the time between beginning work on this project, and actually getting something published has been over 2 years!
Of course, most of this time was not spent actually doing anything related to that particular paper. In fact, the majority of the time was spent waiting for referees to get round to reading the thing. Actually “waiting” is the wrong word, as I have come to realise that the best strategy when submitting papers to journals is not to wait, but to completely put it out of your mind (unfortunately this doesn’t help when you then have to revise it months later), and perhaps set some kind of reminder to get in touch with the editor one year in the future and ask exactly what is going on. I currently have two other papers “under review”, one of which has been “with editor” (I assume this to mean that the editor hasn’t got around to actually looking at it, let alone passing it to a referee) since May, and the other which, perhaps thankfully, I have no way of knowing what is happening with.
There is intermittent hand-wringing about the peer-review system in mathematical circles, and in academia in general. Like exams, and job interviews, it seems to be grudgingly accepted to be the least bad form of evaluation. Recently Timothy Gowers raised the possibility of an alternative system on his blog, which led to much fevered debate (I have just noted that I am at least the the seventh blog to have linked to that particular post, so it is safe to assume the debate sparked by it stretches much further than that particular lengthy list of comments!).