Lee Cronin

Everyone is grumpy on some days when you challenge. The problem with this paper is it's almost like I went to a party. I used to do this occasionally when I was young. Go to a meeting. and just find a way to offend everyone at the meeting simultaneously. Even the factions that don't like each other, they're all unified in their hatred of you just offending them.

Everyone is grumpy on some days when you challenge. The problem with this paper is it's almost like I went to a party. I used to do this occasionally when I was young. Go to a meeting. and just find a way to offend everyone at the meeting simultaneously. Even the factions that don't like each other, they're all unified in their hatred of you just offending them.

This paper, it feels like the person that went to the party and offended everyone simultaneously, so they stopped fighting with themselves and just focused on this paper.

This paper, it feels like the person that went to the party and offended everyone simultaneously, so they stopped fighting with themselves and just focused on this paper.

This paper, it feels like the person that went to the party and offended everyone simultaneously, so they stopped fighting with themselves and just focused on this paper.

Yeah, I mean, so when we originally sent the paper, we sent the paper and the editor said that, you know, this was like, this is quite a long process. We sent the paper and the editor gave us some feedback and said, you know, I don't think it's that interesting. It's not, you know, or it's hard. It's a hard concept. And we asked, and the editor gave us some feedback

Yeah, I mean, so when we originally sent the paper, we sent the paper and the editor said that, you know, this was like, this is quite a long process. We sent the paper and the editor gave us some feedback and said, you know, I don't think it's that interesting. It's not, you know, or it's hard. It's a hard concept. And we asked, and the editor gave us some feedback

Yeah, I mean, so when we originally sent the paper, we sent the paper and the editor said that, you know, this was like, this is quite a long process. We sent the paper and the editor gave us some feedback and said, you know, I don't think it's that interesting. It's not, you know, or it's hard. It's a hard concept. And we asked, and the editor gave us some feedback

um and we and sarah and i took a year to rewrite the paper was the nature of the feedback very specific on like this part this part or was it like like what are you guys smoking what kind of yeah it was kind of the latter what you're smoking okay and you know but polite and there's promise yeah well the thing is there was the edit was really critical but in a but in a really professional way yeah

um and we and sarah and i took a year to rewrite the paper was the nature of the feedback very specific on like this part this part or was it like like what are you guys smoking what kind of yeah it was kind of the latter what you're smoking okay and you know but polite and there's promise yeah well the thing is there was the edit was really critical but in a but in a really professional way yeah

um and we and sarah and i took a year to rewrite the paper was the nature of the feedback very specific on like this part this part or was it like like what are you guys smoking what kind of yeah it was kind of the latter what you're smoking okay and you know but polite and there's promise yeah well the thing is there was the edit was really critical but in a but in a really professional way yeah

And I mean, for me, this was the way science should happen. So when it came back, you know, we had too many equations in the paper. If you look at the preprint, they're just equations everywhere, like 23 equations. And when I said to Abhishek, who was the first author, we've got to remove all the equations. But my assembly equation saying Abhishek was like...

And I mean, for me, this was the way science should happen. So when it came back, you know, we had too many equations in the paper. If you look at the preprint, they're just equations everywhere, like 23 equations. And when I said to Abhishek, who was the first author, we've got to remove all the equations. But my assembly equation saying Abhishek was like...

And I mean, for me, this was the way science should happen. So when it came back, you know, we had too many equations in the paper. If you look at the preprint, they're just equations everywhere, like 23 equations. And when I said to Abhishek, who was the first author, we've got to remove all the equations. But my assembly equation saying Abhishek was like...

you know no we can't i said well look if we want to explain this to people there's a real challenge and so sarah and i went through the i think it was actually 160 versions of the paper but we basically we got to version 40 or something we said right zero it start again so we wrote the whole paper again we knew the entire amazing and we just went bit by bit by bit and said what is it we want to say and then we sent the paper in um

you know no we can't i said well look if we want to explain this to people there's a real challenge and so sarah and i went through the i think it was actually 160 versions of the paper but we basically we got to version 40 or something we said right zero it start again so we wrote the whole paper again we knew the entire amazing and we just went bit by bit by bit and said what is it we want to say and then we sent the paper in um

you know no we can't i said well look if we want to explain this to people there's a real challenge and so sarah and i went through the i think it was actually 160 versions of the paper but we basically we got to version 40 or something we said right zero it start again so we wrote the whole paper again we knew the entire amazing and we just went bit by bit by bit and said what is it we want to say and then we sent the paper in um

And we expected it to be rejected and not even go to review. And then we got notification back it had gone to review. And we were like, oh, my God, it's so going to get rejected. How is it going to get rejected? Because the first assembly paper on the mass spec we sent to Nature went through six rounds of review and was rejected. And by a chemist who just said, I don't believe you.

And we expected it to be rejected and not even go to review. And then we got notification back it had gone to review. And we were like, oh, my God, it's so going to get rejected. How is it going to get rejected? Because the first assembly paper on the mass spec we sent to Nature went through six rounds of review and was rejected. And by a chemist who just said, I don't believe you.

And we expected it to be rejected and not even go to review. And then we got notification back it had gone to review. And we were like, oh, my God, it's so going to get rejected. How is it going to get rejected? Because the first assembly paper on the mass spec we sent to Nature went through six rounds of review and was rejected. And by a chemist who just said, I don't believe you.