My paper on the distribution of dental features in theropods

What paper?

Hendrickx, C., Mateus, O., Araújo, R. and Choiniere, J. 2019. The distribution of dental features in non-avian theropod dinosaurs: Taxonomic potential, degree of homoplasy, and major evolutionary trends. Palaeontologia Electronica 22 (3): 1–110. https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2019/2806-dental-features-in-theropods

Statistics

- 200 saurischian taxa included

- 145 dental characters in the datamatrix

- 125 taxa examined first-hand

- 97 taxa scored in the datamatrix

- 35 institutions visited

- 14 countries visited

- 7 years to complete the MS

- 6 reviewers

- 5 continents visited

- 5 years to be published

- 4 submissions

- 3 scientific journals

- 2 years with no publications

Timeline

2012 I start writing an MS combining a proposed terminology on theropod teeth with the distribution of dental features in non-avian theropods

12/2013 MS submitted to Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (JVP).

02/2014 MS reviewed by two referees, including Joshua Smith who suggests to separate the paper into two manuscripts (accepted with major revisions)

03/2014 MS re-submitted to JVP without the part on the distribution of dental features

05/2014 MS on the distribution of dental features submitted to PLOS ONE and rejected by this journal

05/2014 MS on the distribution of dental features submitted to Palaeontologia Electronica (PE)

02/2015 MS reviewed a first time in PE by a single anonymous referee (accepted with major revisions)

03/2017 Because of the inclusions of a large amount of new data on theropod teeth, PE editor Julien Louys suggests a new submission (moribund status)

09/2017 MS submitted to PE a second time (new submission)

11/2017 MS reviewed a first time in PE by three referees (accepted with major revisions; n.b., referee 3 suggests to reject the paper)

04/2018 MS re-submitted to PE for a second row of reviews (Laura Wilson is now the editor in charge)

06/2018 MS reviewed a second time in PE by a single referee (accepted with 'substantial modifications'; referee 4 requires substantial editing)

10/2018 MS re-submitted to PE for a third row of reviews

11/2018 Editor Laura Wilson asks to submit the MS with track changes

01/2019 MS reviewed a third time in PE by a single referee. MS requires 'some modifications'

03/2019 MS re-submitted to PE for a fourth row of reviews

05/2019 MS accepted in PE after a fourth row of reviews. Modifications required from the handling and style editors (Julien Louys is now the editor in charge). Referee 4 is still not satisfied with the MS and considers that it still requires a lot of work [reviews sent by Yasuyuki Nakamura]

06/2019 MS re-submitted to PE after modifications

10/2019 MS officially accepted for publication in PE

11/2019 Proof sent to us by managing editor Jennifer Pattison Rumford

11/2019 Proof corrected and submitted to managing editor Jennifer Pattison Rumford after several rows of proofing (thanks to Jennifer)

11/2019 Paper published in PE (27/11/2019)

Comments

It's the first time I provide comments and details on the whole publication process of a paper. By doing so, I wish to illustrate how difficult it can be for a scientist to have a manuscript published. Likewise, by sharing my experience, I want to give some hope to researchers who would be facing the same situation, desperate by what seems to be a never-ending process to have their paper published. As you may have seen in the timeline, I started writing this MS in 2012 and it took seven, almost eight, years of my life to have it published. The process was just a nightmare considering the fact that it was submitted to three different journals and was reviewed five times by six different referees (this is an assumption given that most of them were anonymous). The first reviewer from the very first submission in Palaeontologia Electronica asks for so many changes that it took me more than a year to complete (I admittedly worked on other projects in the meantime). The inclusion of a new co-author (Jonah Choiniere) from the University of the Witwatersrand, where I started a postdoctoral fellowship, also considerably delayed the process of publication given that a new set of analyses was performed to add more weight to the paper.

On this day (the day the paper was published; 27/11/2019), I have mixed feelings about this publication. Of course, I'm happy to have a second monograph-sized paper on theropod teeth but the process was so painful and so long that it does not encourage me to write any other monograph-size manuscripts in the future. Possibly a book, but not a monograph. This costs me way too much time and energy and created a lot of frustration due to the numerous reviewing processes. Most importantly, one of the direct consequences of such a long procedure was that I did not publish any papers for two years. I can tell you that two years without a single publication sucks on a CV, and this will definitely be a drawback on any future application for a permanent position in vertebrate palaeontology. I now have to wait for the impact of this study in the small world of 'theropodology'. Let's see the consequence of this publication on my career. Will it be seen as an important work by my colleagues and be highly cited, or will it just be considered as another paper on a very specific field and will, therefore, not weight much on my CV?

The world of palaeontology, as in other fields of science, is a world of passionate people. It is this passion that let me add more data on theropod teeth, examine more specimens, and include additional time-consuming analyses. If I had not been passionate about theropods, I would not have carried on this career. Because publishing can be particularly though and there is not much satisfaction at the end of the process. I recently realized that I also put so much effort on this study to have some recognition. They are so many people working on dinosaurs nowadays that it is just so hard to be remembered. And if your research does not make an impact on your colleagues, then forget about getting a permanent job in the field. The competition is just too strong to be seen as a valuable asset to the field. And leaving the field you love so much, not being a palaeontologist, this job that you dreamed to get when you were a little boy, would just be considered by you as the biggest failure of your life.