Nobel Prizes rejected by top journals are not just this one.
Editor’s note: This article is from WeChat public account “Quantum” (ID: QbitAI), the author is doing a good job.
Not all the light, can be seen in the first time.
No one can think of this. One of the first research results of the Nobel Prize this year, there was a rejection of Nature by 27 years ago.
In 1992, Nature wrote to the young Oxford professor Peter J. Ratcliffe (“Peter John Ratcliffe”) a letter of rejection:
The basic reaction mechanism of cell hypoxia was found to be insufficient for Nature.
After 27 years, Ratcliffe was crowned the first prize in global research for this research.
And with the rejection of the letter of rejection, it also caused more discussion about the review system, the pain of scientific research, and the persistence of the ten-year lamp of the long-term and night rain.
Nature rejection letter 27 years ago
On October 8th, the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medical Awards was first announced.
Sir Ratcliffe of Oxford University, and Gregg L. Semenz, a professor at Johns Hopkins University in the United States, and William G. Kaelin, Jr. of Harvard University, became the winners of the Nobel Prize.
The jury believes that their research results found out how cells perceive and adapt to the availability of oxygen.
This reveals one of the most important adaptation processes in life, laying the groundwork for understanding how oxygen levels affect cellular metabolism and physiological functions, and paving the way for new strategies to fight anemia, cancer and many other diseases. the way.
But after the awards were announced, various materials about the Nobel Prize winners were further exposed.
Among them, regarding Sir Ratcliffe, it was a refusal letter from Nature that was rejected by Nature in 1992, and it was the result of this jazz plus prize.
And the reason and mechanism for rejecting the manuscript also made more people feel the same about the jazz experience. Because Nature’s reason for rejecting Sir Ratcliffe is too familiar.
Don’t write a letter of rejection?
Rejection letter was issued on August 5, 1992, when 38-year-old Tecliffe worked at Oxford University to conduct research on cellular hypoxia in his own laboratory. This paper was submitted to Nature. It is also the result of research at this stage.
Nature in the refusal letter, a total of two review comments were given, respectively, with Review 1 and Review 2.
The comments of Review 1 are:
While it is clear from the essentially favor comments of reviewer 1 that your finding will be of interest to others in the field.
(Although) the recommendations given in Review 1 can be clearly seen, Your findings will be of interest to others in this field.
The comments of Review 2 are direct and “sharp”:
reviewer 2 is not persuaded that they represent a sufficient advance in our understanding of the mechanisms of genetic response to hypoxia to justify publication in Nature.
(but) Review 2 does not believe that the gene is hypoxic The response mechanism is ample progress and is not enough to publish on Nature.
The editor of Nature finally concluded that, given the limited layout, this paper is still a more professional journal.
The final conclusion is still euphemistic, but the comments of reviews 1 and 2 have made today’s discussants feel painful.
Everything is similar. The two judges still seem to be red and white face assignments, but they do not give accurate and “helpful” comments.
There was also a commentator commenting that it was possible that the review did not understand the value of the paper at the time.
Specified papers rejected?
The rejected paper itself was further dug up.
Although this refusal letter does not specify which paper this is, it is not difficult to make predictions and locks.
First of all, the paper was rejected on August 5, 1992, and the same research results will definitely be released later.
Secondly, from the feedback given by Review 2, the content of this paper is “the mechanism of genetic response to hypoxia”.
Finally, the author of the paper was Peter J. Ratcliffe.
In combination with these factors, this paper surfaced:
Inducible operation of the erythropoietin 3′ enhancer in multiple cell lines: evidence for a widespread oxygen-sensing mechanism
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.90.6.2423< /blockquote>
The paper was published on March 15, 1993, and was first published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Although it is not as familiar as Nature and Science, it is also a top academic journal with the same name as the former two.
And the submission time is October 7 of the current year, after Nature rejected the draft for 2 months.
Of course, Ratcliffe also published a large number of research results during this period and beyond, and can not fully say that the results of this paper allow Sir to join Nobel today.
But the evaluation given by the Nobel Prize official proves that the genetic response to hypoxia is one of the keys.
So the netizens felt that they didn’t know that Nature had rejected the editor and review of the draft. 2 If there is still impression and memory, I don’t know what to think.
But more netizens responded by saying, “There may be no feelings.”
Because every person doing research has experienced too many such things, and is being NThe Nobel Prize in rejecting manuscripts such as ature is not only the one.
The result of the Noi Prize of Say No
In addition to this year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medical, many Nobel Prize winners have been rejected in history.
In 1933, the famous Italian physicist Fermi (right, the one who named Fermi particles by his name) proposed a weak interaction in the four basic interactions of the universe. The paper was entitled “An attempt of a Theory of beta radiation”.
He initially voted for Nature, and the result was rejected on the grounds of “too much out of reality.” He could only publish this article in the German Journal of Physics. Germany at the time was still the center of natural science, so the result was not bad.
In 1938, he won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his “related findings on nuclear reactions.”
Fermi was rejected because the judge thought that the article was not closed, but it was reasonable, but the winner of another Nobel Prize was a bit miserable.
The German biochemist Hans Krebs’s paper itself is not wrong, but at the time Nature had a lot of articles, so that the editors couldn’t be reviewed at all, and the review of the article might take another two months.
Krebs switched to other academic journals in order to publish the article as soon as possible. In 1953, Krebs won the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medical in 1953 for “discovering the tricarboxylic acid cycle.”
Krebs wrote in his memoirs: “This is the first time in my career. After publishing more than 50 papers, I was rejected or half rejected.”
In addition, the “Title Party” should not be avoided in the delivery of papers. Murray Gell-Mann, a physicist who passed away in May this year, ate this loss.
The title of the article he originally voted for in Physical Review was called “Isotopic Spin and Curious Particles.” The editor thought that “Curious Particles” was not suitable for the title, and Gherman proposed a change. “Strange Particles”, but the editor insists on using “New Unstable Particles”.
Gellman is also very hard-pressed, saying that he hates the Physical Review Letter because of this matter and decided not to publish a paper in their journals in the future. But in fact it is “true incense” because there are not many top academic journals available for him to choose.
German was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1969 for his “contribution and discovery of the classification and interaction of elementary particles.”
The “Curious Particles” was rejected, and another Nobel Prize-winning “God Particle” was rejected.
The reason why Peter Higgs, who proposed the “Higgs boson” that gave the quality of everything, was rejected was not the title. The title of his paper is very orthodox – “the spontaneous symmetry of the massless boson is broken.”
In 1966, he initially delivered the paper to the Physical Express, but was rejected because it could not be guaranteed to be published quickly. In the second half of the year, he published his paper in another academic journal, Physical Review.
After 47 years, Higgs finally won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2013. However, the speed of the Royal Swedish scientist’s award is “speedy”, because in the previous year the European Nuclear Research Center discovered the particles predicted by Higgs in the experiment.
Although it seems that the rejection of these heavyweight studies is a case of “Bole’s ignorance of Maxima”.
But in the eyes of some academic circles, it cannot be said that this is a mistake. On the contrary, it illustrates the health of the peer review system and the scientific rigor of the review.
Moreover, after many research results are rejected, the final result is often better than the first draft.
This Nobel Prize is full of positive energy
As with Sir Ratcliffe, the above-mentioned rejected research results were finally recognized.
This will undoubtedly give more research,Young scholars who are determined to explore the forefront of the universe are more confident. On this not-so-easy road, the experience of the Nobel Prize winners may be the beacon of their frustration.
And even more interesting is that this Nobel Prize is also considered to be full of energy. For example, the “Goodenough” father who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Because there were a lot of achievements and countless awards, but the “good enough” father to accompany the Nobel Prize for many years, in the workshop is a type of “research contribution is huge, but may not be a lifetime award.”
This year, the “good enough” father won the Nobel Prize at the age of 97, setting a new record for the Nobel Prize winner.
The old man finally got what he was looking for. This is not only recognized, but also the scientific spirit of “when is it not too late?”
The father of the lithium battery, suffering from dyslexia in childhood, the growing family is not harmonious, the university went through World War II, and twice interrupted the school to join the army.
And at the beginning, it was also a member of the confused young people. After his undergraduate entrance to Yale, he first studied classical literature and later turned to philosophy. He finally decided to use mathematics as his bachelor’s degree.
After the war, he became interested in physics. Even if others told him that “the field you want to study has been studied almost,” he still followed his heart and interest, chose the physics of the University of Chicago, and took it at the age of 30. To the doctorate.
However, you now know the result. “Good enough” Father is not the Nobel Prize in Chemistry won by physics. He is contributing to the field of lithium batteries.
When did he start to enter this field? 54 years old – yes, one of China often says “the age of knowing”.
The 58-year-old invention of lithium cobalt oxide battery changed the world. At the age of 75, the lithium iron phosphate battery changed the world again. After the age of 90, it began to study all-solid-state batteries, hoping to change the world again.
More importantly, the “good enough” professor feels that he can still be better.
So far so old, still working 5 days a week, new research results are still coming out. Father said that he is not yet think The age of retirement.
So this time the Nobel Prize winner, even now, is enough to inspire people on the road of research?
The rejection of Sir Ratcliffe’s experience shows that not all the light can be seen right away.
And Professor Goodenough’s legendary life tells us when it’s not too late.
It is important open-minded, it is important to Follow your heart.
Yes?
Transportation:
2019 Nobel’s Physiology\Medical Awards are the first to be awarded! Anglo-American 3 scholars crowned, revealing the relationship between blood and oxygen, fighting cancer and cancer
97 years old Nobel Prize winner’s inspirational life: present scientific literature, Dr. turn physical, 54 began lithium battery research
