Lead climbing through papers

What is it that I like about my job?  I enjoy most aspects of it including teaching, service, research, and collegiality.  Writing papers is one of the enjoyable experiences of being a professor.  Early in my career publication of papers was more difficult because I was just getting started, and I was fairly unskilled.  The process felt more desperate then.  It has always been satisfying, however, and the process is much less desperate these days. 

Publication feels more natural at this point because I do it more often, and though any particular paper might still garner low reviews, particularly from someone who disagrees with a paper’s position, the whole process is fun, though it is also frustrating at times.  In addition, success at getting a few papers ‘out the door’ makes it easier to focus on new ones.  I have also had a few fortunate collaborations in which I got to share writing with others colleagues (including many a gifted student).  Hence, paper writing is less desperate. 

Writing is satisfying because it is creative, and in science it is rigorous.  To use rock climbing as an analogy, the creative process is like figuring out cruxes in climbing routes.  Finishing a paper feels (to me) like the afterglow of a good, solid day of rock climbing.  I no longer rock climb, though I did for years.  The parallels I see between that challenge and writing continue to interest me.  Writing is less dangerous, no doubt.  I always felt like enjoying good pizza and beer after a day of climbing; the same can be said for days when I submit papers for review.

Publication is rewarding, but I find more joy in the submission process prior to review.  No paper is perfect, and it will undoubtedly come back from a journal’s editorial staff with comments from reviewers.  These can smart a bit, but usually help make a paper better.  Publication comes after a long process of review, editing, and rewriting.  There are some papers that are like difficult climbing routes; after much work, success might come.  There are also some papers that will never be published, much like there are some routes that I will never climb—whatever the reason.

‘Lead climbing’ entails placing protection into the rock face as one climbs a route.  It can be a much more fearful process than simply top-roping a climb secured from its apex with the security of a belayer (a person who secures the rope during the climb).  The publication process is much like lead climbing because there is very little front-loaded protection.   However, with practice it becomes clear that the review process is usually fair and that most reviewers are analogous to belayers; they are simply hoping to make the process of writing better and easier.

I have spent a lot of time focusing on writing in this post and previous ones because I feel it is important at every level from student to professional.  I believe that students in particular tire from hearing me state the importance of writing ability, not to mention use of quantitative methods, time management, et cetera.  I am tempted to feel apologetic about my positions, but I do not regret voicing my opinions.  I know from experience that it is easy to underestimate the true cost of learning, writing and rock-climbing skills included.   

I have been at an international conference for the last couple of days, and I visit regularly with professionals who hire students from our program.  They convey to me, again and again, that those students who have developed their research skills are rare.  Like all other challenges, for example rock climbing, any student, professional, or professor can improve with practice. Companies may hire someone who is unskilled, but they will not keep someone who does not learn the skills required to succeed, which—much like rock-climbing—is an uncertain process that requires practice.