First set of three reviews from the publishers arrived late on Friday and, like all reviews, I leave them for at least a day to sit there unseen. That way I can imagine all possibilities from the dire to the miraculous. It is good to do with research grants, where you can build up the possible feelings of pleasure and satisfaction in being able to use resources to do science you have always wanted to do. It is also helpful for me to explore the feelings of failure, tasting to see what it would trigger, and how resilient I am feeling. Much more common is getting reviews for our research papers, where there are many detailed comments about how our work is or is not passing muster. Inevitably with academics’ focus on criticism (even constructive) the blows are always there to be withstood, from sledge-hammers to raindrops. The full taste comes whether it looks like my research paper will be accepted in the end, or not.

And so to the reviews of the book, left to stew for a day before my family’s absence gave me the time to take a look. All somewhat short, but all rather positive!  They have never seen anything covering this range of ideas, they like the writing, and think it a good subject. This seems to mean that the whole project will go forward. I am asked to respond in a gentle way to all their questions, which range from probing who is really the right audience (well, yes I am considering that too) to insisting on providing the references and sources (which is now the role of this website, as I think it’s a better way than wasting paper at the back of a book, and encourages active participation – more on this later).

Reviewer 1 likes the book, noting it is written with the “passion of a journalist” and the “competence of a sociologist”. Perhaps their comment of a “disenchanted overview” is not quite what I aim for, but gives one view of how it will be taken. Referee 2 finds it a “good book in an unusual and important category”. They are perhaps less convinced by my Visions interludes – I think they break up the text, and stimulate imaginings of science utopias and dystopias. But so far, some readers like them and some don’t, which is just what I’ll deal with. Perhaps my editors will really be helpful here. Reviewer 3 finds the arguments “well put forth, in a personal style which makes this book an attractive read” that “fills a real gap and constitutes a laudable undertaking”. They suggest I get more scientists to read it, as they may all have different views. It is true I cannot take all of these into account in a single book, so I think I’ll deal with this by starting a thread on this website that explores different experiences of scientists in different disciplines.

Overall I think the reviewers pick up on the things that I also feel less able to assess: how to judge what is the right way to market this book (which also should inform the choice of title), how to leverage controversy generated to gain more readers, and how to mix fiction and non-fiction in a satisfying way. I have written a response, which apparently all goes to the editorial board in a week or two, so that is the next things to wait for.