Insight from Inner Circle call
During our last Inner Circle call, we spent almost half the session not on methods, not on journals, but on⊠confidence. The research novelty was strong. The research design was solid. But the real friction was internal: âSome days Iâm sure journals will be interested in this. Other days Iâm convinced no one will care and itâs already outdated.â If that sounds familiar, youâre not alone. A few patterns keep coming up with PhD students and earlyâcareer researchers: - âNo noveltyâ from reviewers often means the gap and contribution arenât visible enough, not that they donât exist. - International/visiting scholars carry an extra âWho am I to publish on this?â when their context isnât the âusualâ one. - We quickly forget our small wins and treat a single rejection as a referendum on our entire career. Here are three shifts that helped the person on that call â and might help you too: 1. Keep a âwins logâ Every week, write down specific wins: a clear paragraph, constructive feedback, a good question you answered at a seminar, a supervisor saying âthis is promisingâ. On the bad days, you have evidence that youâre not standing still. 2. Treat confidence as a practice, not a personality trait Confidence is not âI always know the answerâ. Confidence is âIâm willing to show my work, listen, and improve.â Every time you send a draft, ask a question, or present unfinished work, youâre doing a rep in the confidence gym. 3. Separate your value from reviewer decisions In many fields, 10â20% acceptance rates are normal. Rejection is the default outcome, even for very good work. The useful question is not âAm I good enough?â but âWhat is this decision telling me about how to sharpen my problem, gap, and contribution?â On that call, once we normalised the imposter feelings and anchored back to actual evidence of progress, you could feel the shift: from âMaybe I shouldnât be doing thisâ to âOkay, how do we get this paper out?â In my Inner Circle, this is exactly the mix we work on every week: