I remember being shocked back in May when Amanda at Pandagon said, "A mix CD takes like half an hour, tops, which means that you can pretty much arrange it, drop the disc in and by the time you've finished making your sandwich, it's done." My procedure for mix CDs takes about a week and goes like this:
In fact, it just occurred to me that parts of this process are strikingly analogous to the process of editing a paper for submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Just substitute figures and equations for songs, and a limit of four pages instead of 80 minutes. Somehow the mix CD version is a lot more fun, though.
Posted by Arcane Gazebo at August 24, 2005 3:46 PM | Tags: MusicYou're not kidding about the OCD....
In terms of papers, I know that feeling well, although most of my stuff doesn't go to journals with strict maxima. (I should say, though, that the number of iterations I need is larger on average for the situations where I am submitting to such a journal.)
My record is in the 30s (not including page proofs), with nontrivial changes occuring between almost every pair of versions.
High single digits or really low teens (with small changes not causing numerical incrementation) are what usually occurs for my papers.
Posted by: Mason | August 24, 2005 5:31 PMMake me a mix CD. I'm dead serious. I want to spend weeks listening to it on repeat trying to infer the subtle nuances of the relationships of the songs. Not only the songs on the CD, but the songs *not* on the CD.
Posted by: Lemming | August 24, 2005 5:35 PMMason: I think our record was in the low 80's, for a paper that had seven authors and was going to a journal with a four-page limit.
Lemming: Sure! You'll have to report on your analysis when you're done, of course. :)
Posted by: Arcane Gazebo | August 24, 2005 8:53 PMOf course. I'll try to make sure it's as entertaining as my interpretation of Einstein on the Beach.
Posted by: Lemming | August 24, 2005 9:19 PMMay I never reach 80 iterations... the fact that I've never been on a paper with seven authors helps. (My max is 4 thus far, and 2 is my most common number.)
Posted by: Mason | August 24, 2005 11:11 PMThat paper I whined about? Seven authors, two of whom dislike each other intensely, and 40+ revisions (due to numerous computer issues, I don't have an accurate count, but it took 2 years), before submissions with a couple of really nasty rounds after submission. What an introduction to the fine world of publishing in science.
Posted by: Wren | August 25, 2005 8:13 AMBack in the day, the purpose of publishing was to disseminate information rather than for career, grant, etc. purposes (and that final stamp of approval that helps with that other stuff). At least we have the arXiv to still keep the original purpose in mind. [I know several prominent scientists who would do away with journals entirely. One of my collaborators got out of a PRE editorship that way. They offered this to him, he stated the above opinion while agreeing to serve, and they withdrew the offer (which is what he wanted). He says what he thinks (consequences be damned), which I respect a great deal...]
Posted by: Mason | August 25, 2005 4:48 PMPRE? Phys Rev E?
My advisor has been talking about using his NAS membership to circumvent the review process more often. Unfortunately, that still doesn't help with uncollaborative collaborators...
Posted by: Wren | August 25, 2005 9:46 PMYes, that's the right acronym.
For PNAS, many people seem to look at track I and track II articles _very_ differently. For him it won't matter, but it could matter for his junior coauthors. (Most likely, nobody will check, but the general vibe seems to be that taking advantage of the NAS membership [track 1, if I am remembering which is which correctly] is considered to be pretty wussy.) Also, this is _because_ of its use to circumvent the review process.
Posted by: Mason | August 25, 2005 9:56 PM