Science, Publishing and Politics

I've been neglecting you folks because this week was a busy and monumental week in my real, read non-blogging, life. I have just submitted my first article for publication in a proper scientific journal. Congratulations are not in order just yet, because the process from submission until actual publication is long and drawn out and involves many milestones, such as passing editor review, then peer review, doing suggested revisions, then undergoing all the different tier reviews again, and finally if they think it's good enough... publication in 2008! (And this is all if they don't reject you right off the bat.) But it's a start, and I dare say I'm quite proud.

A few things I've learned in the process:

The scientific community is as politicized as any. Call me naive but I'm shocked. You'd think that in a field that supposedly strives to uncover "the truth", at least in the natural sense, ideas would move forward based on their innovation and contribution to progress rather than the popularity and rank of the person behind them. Too often, that's not the case. I found it unbelievable that some of the most productive and respected scientists were cliquish, territorial and small-minded people.

I also was surprised to learn how much ethnicity counted for accountability. In my field, you're either Italian, Jewish or German. If you're not, you'd better be working with someone who is. In a related field that we work closely with, you're either Oriental or Russian. Go figure... I don't understand it at all.

I discovered how utterly boring academians can be-- I call them brains-on-a-stick. I don't see any point in being too cerebral to enjoy life, to laugh at your mistakes, at yourself and your peers (because that's always fun). I suspect that the philosophy or English departments are full of witty and enjoyable personalities, but unfortunately my department is not and it makes for very boring work environment. On the other hand, when there is no goofing around, everyone is focused and results driven. Hmmm...

I used to think that the one sacrosanct rule in publishing is "respect the literature", i.e. don't plagiarize. If an idea you write about has been thought up previously by womeone else but is not properly cited, woe be to you and your chances at a future career. But I learned that in fact the cardinal rule is "respect your superiors", and if you displease them, again woe be to you. I learned this the hard way when I accidentally named the wrong person as "corresponding author". Big deal you say? Just contact the editors and let them know it was a mistake? You'd think. But no, I got whupped and the person who should have been named, the mighty director (who actually had very little to do with the writing of the paper), is mighty mad. (Any ideas how to get back on someone's good side?)

There's plenty more ranting where this came from, but I've got to get back to work now. My next project is finishing up my grant application. (It's weird but I basically have to pay for myself with grant money and fund my own projects.) After that I'll probably be ranting how G.W. Bush wrecked the country by spending trillions on the war and slashing the scientific-research budget, so while war 'only' killed a few thousand American soldiers, millions more Americans will die from cancer and heart disease and other ailments for which the cure will not have been found because there's not enough private money to fund the research and the federal government has backed out. It's all so promising, I can hardly wait.