First publication

The manuscript that I eluded to in earlier posts has finally been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Earth Surface. Since many people have asked me how the publication process works, I thought I'd try to explain it - but in a broader context (how does science "work"?).

First, you have to figure out what questions to ask about your particular field; this is fairly natural and usually stems directly from your previous work. Then you have to figure out a creative way to investigate those questions, and of course, find a funding agency willing to support your work. For glaciology, the funding sources are typically the National Science Foundation or NASA, but there are other options. You must then write a proposal (usually with other investigators) and submit it to the funding agency. The proposal goes through a review panel consisting of scientists in the same field and in related fields. They ultimately choose which projects will be funded.

If your project is funded, you usually receive two to three years of support; the amount of money you receive depends on the nature of the project. After you conduct your research, you are expected to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. This is crucial if you hope to continue in academics, make tenure, or continue receiving funding.

The peer-review process is science's attempt at objectivity, and usually it works well. But as I have learned from my own experience and from others' stories, there is a certain amount of politics and personal agendas that are difficult to avoid. Even though we as scientists are taught to separate our opinions from our work, it is sometimes difficult to hear somebody else tell you that what you've worked on for the past 5 years is a bunch of crap. So naturally, some (but definitely not all) scientists develop egos and hold grudges.

At any rate, after conducting your research, you typically write a 12-15 page paper and submit it to an appropriate journal. A scientific editor with the journal (usually a researcher in the field) reads the paper and forwards it to two or three other people for review. The reviewers are not affiliated with the journal, and are typically faculty members or senior graduate students. They read the paper critically and raise a number of questions regarding the work. The editor then has the choice to (1) accept the paper as is, (2) accept it with minor revisions, (3) accept it with major revisions, or (4) reject it. Choice 2 usually involves minor wording changes that will be only be re-reviewed by the editor. Choice 3 may require substantial re-writing or re-analysis, and resubmittal usually results in the paper being sent back to the same reviewers. This can go through a couple of iterations until the paper is finally accepted. Rejection does not necessarily mean that the manuscript is "dead", but probably requires serious thinking about the work that you've done. If you choose to keep working on the paper, you may need to try submitting to a different journal, depending on the terms and reasons for rejection.

When your work is finally accepted for publication, you transfer copyright privileges to the journal, along with about $100 per page and up to $1000 for figures if they are in color (this money comes from grants, if there is no money the journal may waive the fee). The journal publishes the work, sends you "pre-prints" (which are essentially nice copies of your manuscript), and sells the journal to libraries and individuals. And then you wait to become famous. If you're particularly successful, you will receive phone calls from science reporters who will misinterpret your statements and write about your "results" in the newspaper. Then, of course, politicians take the newspaper articles and twist them to satisfy their own agenda, such that in the end you have little faith that the general public really understands the current state of science.

This is my third year of graduate school and I'm already jaded.