Sarah Frampton, PhD, BCBA-D, LBA (NE)
University of Nebraska Omaha

Dr. Sarah Frampton, PhD, BCBA-D, Science Corner Coordinator

Dr. Sarah Frampton, PhD, BCBA-D, Science Corner Coordinator

“We regret to inform you that…” Sigh. I know what’s coming next. The article I worked on for several years has been rejected. In editorial terms, it’s a hard pass. Though I have received this decision from an associate editor in an esteemed journal many times before, it still feels crushingly disappointing. The initial sting is followed by bouts of imposter syndrome. Ultimately, it is a stark reminder that submitting articles to peer reviewed journals to receive comprehensive feedback from experts in your field requires courage and a thick skin.

Let’s back up. The development of this research article began in August 2019 but really accelerated in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. At this uncertain time, all the research projects I had been working on with young children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were put on hold due to risks related to everyone’s health and safety. However, as a person always seeking a new project, I was in the market for a novel research activity that did not require in-person interaction. In the research world, “Let’s write a paper” is basically akin to “Let’s start a band.”

With my long-time friend and collaborator, Dr. Daniel Conine, we decided to undertake a systematic literature review project. Systematic literature reviews are underestimated for their complexity. This type of research article involves searching multiple databases to find all the research articles published on a particular topic. Then, you systematically include or exclude the articles depending on a set of parameters. Once you have collected a group of articles, you begin to read each one and code different characteristics of the article. Along the way you compare your coding with another researcher to evaluate the accuracy of your coding. It is a painstaking and labor-intensive project. For this systematic literature review, this stage of the project took over one year.

After we had collected our data, we began writing which took about another six months. For those of you keeping track, our paper is now toddler aged. In November 2021, we submitted the paper to a top-tier journal. Publishing in this journal would mean that our paper would have high visibility to other researchers in our field, increasing the likelihood of impacting practice for those providing services to individuals with ASD. The journal is also well known for a strong editorial process. We felt confident that the article stood a chance at publication.

In January 2022, our article was rejected- without an invitation to resubmit. That means there was no path forward for this article to be published in this particular journal. The article received very detailed, thorough, and spot-on reviews. As we read the reviews, we felt seen- both in a positive way and in a cringeworthy, “yeah, we messed that up” kind of way. The Associate Editor, an expert in the subject matter of our paper, was kind enough to provide both: a) a very detailed decision letter with recommendations for new directions and revisions to our paper should we submit it elsewhere, and b) a follow up meeting to discuss the decision in even more depth.

As I noted initially, this part was really hard. We had already committed so much time and effort to this project, and we were staring down the path of even more to come. So, we put our “terrible two-year-old” paper on timeout, meaning, we took a break for a good chunk of 2022. But in that time frame, we read more. We reflected on the paper and the comments from reviewers. As more research on the topic had been published during our rest interval, we began reading and coding research again. We refocused our article with the guidance from our first round of reviews. In March 2023, we submitted the article to another journal. We both had positive experiences with this journal in the past and were impressed by the quality of its recently published articles.

In June 2023, I opened the decision email, while holding my breath, and I was relieved to see that the paper had NOT been rejected entirely! The decision from the journal was that the article could be revised and resubmitted based on the very thoughtful reviewer comments. Though we wanted the decision of “accept,” all things considered we were excited that this paper at least had a chance. Unfortunately for us, the time elapsed between submission, decision, and resubmission also meant we needed to code more research (for the third time). We knocked this out, made the recommended revisions, and had the article back under review in September 2023. We hoped this was the home stretch.

In September 2023, the paper was accepted! Finally! There were still final steps that occurred behind the scenes to polish the article and prepare it to appear in a journal. In November 2023, our paper was published online, and by April 2024, it was assigned to an actual issue. By this time, our paper is now approximately a preschooler (4-ish years old), and we felt a bit like overtired, yet anxious parents. The time had come for us to hand over our paper-child to an even broader community of adults (i.e., the readers of the journal). This is another very vulnerable time, the paper was now going to be out in the world for anyone to comment on or disparage. Ultimately, we were and are so proud of this paper, and hope that it makes a difference in guiding research and clinical practice for years to come (see Conine et al., 2024).

To any hopeful authors learning about the editorial process, I have these perspectives to share. The research process can be hard both intellectually and emotionally. It takes resilience. The process is slow-moving, and rightly so. Work needs to be carefully vetted and considered by experts before it is released to the broader readership. It takes patience. Review by your peers is uncomfortable because your thoughts and ideas are judged by others. It takes humility. Given these challenges, when I “start a band” I like to make sure it’s filled up with people who encourage me, inspire me, and challenge me. Spending four years on a paper is time well spent when it is with people that you admire deeply and respect.

To consumers of research articles, I hope that this distinction of being “peer-reviewed” has a bit more meaning. Disseminating an opinion has never been easier: blogs, podcasts, video channels. Disseminating work of true scientific merit, however, remains hard. Anyone can claim expertise to their followers, as these are often folks that do not have the expertise to constructively disagree. Actual expertise can only be determined through rigorous review and questioning by other experts in the same discipline. Though peer-review is an imperfect process, it is the gold standard. When making choices based on best-available evidence, choose your sources carefully and opt for articles that have gone through this meticulously thorough, critical evaluation.

Reference

Conine, D. E., Frampton, S. E., Buote, K. A., & Keller, C. E. (2024). A scoping review of empirical research on emergent intraverbal behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 39(2), e1986. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1986

Reference for this article:

Frampton, S. (2025). Rejected, revised, resilient: The ultimate path of a peer-reviewed paper. Science in Autism Treatment, 22(6).

Related ASAT Articles:

 

#EarlyCareerAndStudents #Faculty #Researchers #TrainingAndSupervision

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email