Warning: rant ahead.
This week I submitted for review the second revision of what will hopefully become my first scientific publication. Together with my supervisor I spent countless hours on this article. But does that mean that it is now the best text that I have ever written? I don't think so.
While a lot of effort did go into improving the clarity, structure, etc.; there are several competing interests which make things harder:
Pleasing the reviewers is something which I especially disliked. To be fair, a lot of comments raised by reviewers were valid, and pointed to actual shortcomings or errors in the manuscript. But some of the comments were of the form "Could you also compare with X", "Did you consider Y" and "This is related to prior work Z". As a result of trying to cover these comments, the paper becomes a Frankenstein's monster of irrelevant remarks. Where before we had:
It now becomes
Okay, I am exaggerating a bit here. But still, I feel that the article would be better if it didn't try to do so many things at once.
Suggestions, criticism and comments on my sanity are welcome.