Read on Twitter
Was chatting with my wife about some particularly challenging revisions to manuscripts, saying that I was struggling to push through them. She asked how I persisted and we ended up framing manuscript revision as a self-regulation issue. A not-so-short thread. 1/x
I have intrinsic motivation to write manuscripts about things I care about and find interesting. But requests for revisions, while usefully helpful, typically require self-regulation because I& #39;m usually not intrinsically motivated to redo prior work. 2/x
So, goal pursuit has shifted, meaning I need to self-motivate by reminding myself of the value of what I am doing ("I care about this work and think it will be mildly helpful, so I should revise even though it is painful"). 3/x
And revisions often lead to negative attributions ("The reviewers want me to change a lot of things, which means I am dumb/incompetent/etc.") that I have to actively manage ("The reviews are about the work, not about me as a researcher, or my qualifications." etc.) 4/x
Quick aside: I& #39;ve seen people post some truly awful reviewer comments here on Twitter (e.g., "This work is terrible. You are a terrible researcher. Why are you even trying?" etc.) and that is appalling. There& #39;s a special place in scholarship hell for reviewers like this. 5/x
Quick aside cont: But, I also blame editors here. As an editor, if I ever got a review like that back, I& #39;d simply withdraw/delete it. Nothing good comes from a review that attacks the person, makes people feel small, etc. And I& #39;d have a serious talk with that reviewer. 6/x
Quick aside cont: I haven& #39;t counted, but I& #39;d guess I& #39;ve handled 400 manuscripts as action editor and I don& #39;t recall ever getting a review back like that. Maybe I& #39;ve been fortunate, but I really hope those reviews are the exception and not the rule. Just awful. 7/x
Quick aside cont: Anyway, aggressive, mean reviews fuel negative attributions, requiring even more self-regulation to persist through. Not good. Don& #39;t do that, reviewers. You can be critical of the work and still be constructive and benevolent to the authors. 8/x
After getting started, effective self-regulation while revising often requires a lot of self-regulated self-talk ("I can do this. It& #39;s not fun but it& #39;ll be over if I just keep working. I can take a break when I need to. I& #39;ll be happy if/when this revision is published" etc.). 9/x
But self-motivation isn& #39;t enough. Strategies matter. There& #39;s lots of helpful "how to revise a manuscript" guides out there; I suspect they are field-specific. But synthesizing the revisions into a set of to-dos and then tackling them one at a time seems helpful. 10/x
Achieving proximal goals (e.g., tackling one revision to-do and crossing it off the list) can be motivating to continue self-regulating toward a distal goal (e.g., resubmission). That& #39;s why breaking it up into separate tasks helps. 11/x
Knowledge and practice matter, too. With each time I revise, I learn some new tricks and tips that make the next revision a bit easier. In the beginning, I had to rely a lot on others to help me gain that knowledge and provide feedback on my practice. 12/x
So getting help with knowledge, strategies, motivation (e.g., "Ugh, revising is the worst, right? Let& #39;s commiserate"), and affect (e.g., "I need some cheering up after a long revision session. Send cat pictures.") is normal and a good thing. Community support matters. 13/x
Finding one& #39;s community and nurturing it is really important. Everybody has down times, struggles, etc. It helps to have a community to support me, and in turn it helps me when I support others. It& #39;s a self- and social-regulation win-win. 14/x
So, revising manuscripts, for me, is a self-regulatory task. It involves motivation, volition, self-talk, strategies, knowledge, practice, help-seeking, and context management. Some days it goes okay and some days it really doesn& #39;t. That& #39;s ok, too. 15/x
But, consistent, positive self-regulation predicts persistence which predicts incremental progress which predicts increased likelihood of success. Sometimes even after all that, the manuscript doesn& #39;t get published. Knowing that happens to everyone helps, too. 16/x
I& #39;ll never forget sitting with one of my advisors (I needed many) and complaining about a manuscript that got rejected. He smiled, reached into his drawer, pulled out three giant stacks of paper, and dropped them loudly on his desk. 17/x
He said, "I love these manuscripts. No one else does. I can& #39;t get them accepted anywhere. That& #39;s just how it goes sometimes." Now, he& #39;s super-successful, so him normalizing that for me was really instructive. 18/x
Thus, even after lots of self-regulating during revision, sometimes I have to do a bunch more after rejection ("It& #39;s about the work, not about me as a person. This happens to other people, too. etc.") 19/x
Do I wish the scholarly publishing system was fairer, kinder, easier to navigate, more equitable, etc.? Absolutely. I wish people didn& #39;t have to self-regulate so much and I like to think I& #39;m making some small contribution to making that system better. 20/x
But I suspect even the best system will still require people to self-regulate a bit to manage their cognition, motivation, emotions, and behaviors while revising. Learning to do that, to persist through to resubmission, has been helpful to me. Research is me-search. 21/21
