Murphy's law in manuscript publication
Do you recognize the Murphy's law in the publish or perish pipeline? There are three symptoms you should be aware:
1) your original draft was initially rejected from your PI citing Samuel Johnson:
Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.
2) your second proof was rejected from the [Science|Nature|Cell] editorial board
Your manuscript is of insufficient immediate interest to our broader readership to justify its publication.
3) the third proof was rejected from that anonymous reviewer of the Journal of Molecular Proctology:
The results are chancy and they lack any theoretical interest