As one who rightly or wrongly assumes that one of the purposes of NN is to provide platform to those who wish to rant / wax lyrical on the trials and tribulations of the practice of the caliginous art, I have been occasionally alluding to my protracted attempts to hew a block of flawed research marble into a form worthy of public exposure.
My boss returned from holiday this week, and suggested a meeting to discuss where it’s at. However, in the interim, having decided to address a potential discrepancy between my data and that in another recent related report, I decided I needed to carry out another experiment (x 3); and it’s also dawned on me that something I was upbeat about was actually a clue to something I need to be wary of. Which I’ve followed up – and I do. (Yeah, I know I’m being vague – purposely; however, the details are not that interesting.)
It’s got me thinking. About whether it’s even harder to get published after a dry run? That you become reticent, worrying it might be wrong, looking for excuses to hold it back out of fear of rejection?
But then isn’t that better than the potential converse: so desperate that you become vulnerable to compromising, massaging, crack-papering, spinning? So, you see, much as I need to – and much as I’m feeling that pressure to – ‘get something out there,’ I’m not going to submit it with the omission chisel marks still visible. And I was so close. But if I can’t nail it, it ain’t going anywhere.
Virtuousness or pussyfooting? Either way, maybe my clean driving licence will come in handy.