I recently ran a KDP Free Book Promotion and got 32 downloads. I'm not complaining—I know readers don't owe reviews—but I was curious if this is typical for new authors. How many free downloads did it take before you received your first review?
​
I was excited... then I realized something.
Not a single review.
I know nobody owes me a review.
They downloaded it for free, and many may not have read it yet. But as a new author, it's surprising how difficult it is to get even one honest review.
For those who've published books:
How many free downloads did it take before you started getting reviews?
Did free promotions actually help your book in the long run?
I'd love to hear your experience.
A few months ago, the woman I loved had an arranged marriage.
I knew she wasn't my partner anymore, so the day she got married I blocked her everywhere and even changed my phone number. My thinking was simple: either a relationship is fully yours, or it's not. I don't believe in staying emotionally attached to someone else's marriage.
After that, I found out she tried calling me many times. Friends told me I should at least talk to her once, but I refused.
Part of me still cares about her as a person. Another part believes that answering those calls would only make it harder for both of us and could cross boundaries that should be respected.
Some people say I'm being too cold. Others say cutting contact completely was the only healthy choice.
I still wonder if I did the right thing.
If you were in my position, would you have answered at least one call for closure, or would you have done exactly what I did?
TL;DR: The woman I loved got married. I blocked her everywhere and changed my number to respect her marriage, even though she later tried to contact me many times. Did I make the right decision by refusing all contact, or should I have answered once for closure?
Day 1: Submission
Bhaskar Pandey submits a paper to a top journal.
Feels like a genius.
Sleeps peacefully for the first time in six months.
It will be the last peaceful sleep for a while.
---
Day 3
Checks email 47 times.
Nothing.
Checks again.
Still nothing.
Refreshes Gmail.
Gmail has not changed in the last four minutes.
Bhaskar does not trust Gmail.
---
Day 45
An email arrives.
"Your manuscript is under review."
Bhaskar celebrates.
Tells his lab mate.
Lab mate says,
"That's just an automatic email."
Bhaskar does not mention that this completely ruined his evening.
---
Day 127
Another email arrives.
"Decision on your manuscript."
Bhaskar's hands start shaking.
He opens the email slowly.
"We regret to inform you..."
The word "regret" does all the damage.
Everything after that is just noise.
---
The Reviews
Reviewer 1
"This is an excellent and well-written paper. The methodology is sound and the results are impressive. I recommend minor revisions."
Bhaskar smiles.
Reviewer 1 is a good human being.
Reviewer 1 understands research.
Bhaskar would like to buy Reviewer 1 a cup of tea someday.
---
Reviewer 2
"I have serious concerns about this manuscript."
Of course you do.
"The authors claim novelty, but this work is clearly inspired by Zhang et al. (2019)."
Bhaskar looks up Zhang et al. (2019).
He has never seen the paper before.
He reads it.
It is about something completely different.
Reviewer 2 appears to have read neither paper.
Reviewer 2 continues.
"The results in Figure 3 are suspicious."
Figure 3 is a straight line.
It is supposed to be a straight line.
It is literally evidence that the system is stable.
Bhaskar stares at Figure 3 for ten minutes.
Figure 3 stares back.
Neither of them understands what Reviewer 2 wants.
Reviewer 2 continues.
"The authors should compare their work with state-of-the-art methods published in 2024."
The manuscript was submitted in 2024.
Those papers did not exist yet.
Reviewer 2 exists outside the normal flow of time.
Final comment:
"This paper requires significant work before it can be considered for publication."
Significant work.
Six months of research.
One patent.
Two hundred simulations.
Significant work.
---
Bhaskar closes the laptop.
Eats dinner in silence.
Comes back.
Opens the laptop.
Starts writing the rebuttal.
---
The Rebuttal
What Bhaskar writes:
"We thank Reviewer 2 for the valuable and insightful comments. We have carefully addressed every point and substantially revised the manuscript."
What Bhaskar actually means:
"Reviewer 2 clearly did not read the paper. Figure 3 is supposed to be a straight line. Zhang et al. (2019) is about something entirely different. We genuinely have no idea what you want."
---
His supervisor reviews the rebuttal.
Supervisor:
"Change this sentence: 'We respectfully disagree.'"
Bhaskar:
"What should I write instead?"
Supervisor:
"Write, 'We thank the reviewer for this excellent observation.'"
Bhaskar:
"But the reviewer is wrong."
Supervisor:
"That doesn't matter. Just get the paper published."
---
Three months later.
Paper accepted.
Bhaskar wonders who Reviewer 2 was.
He will never know.
Reviewer 2 is anonymous.
Reviewer 2 is everywhere.
Reviewer 2 is nowhere.
Reviewer 2 is the darkness itself.
THE END
Dedicated to every Reviewer 2 who has ever existed.
If you've survived a paper rejection and kept going, you're not alone.
Bhaskar Pandey submits a paper to a top journal.
Feels like a genius.
Goes to sleep peacefully for the first time in six months.
This is the last peaceful sleep for a long time.
Nothing.
Checks again.
Still nothing.
Refreshes Gmail.
Gmail has not changed in the last four minutes.
Bhaskar does not trust Gmail.
“Your manuscript is under review.”
Bhaskar celebrates.
Tells his labmate.
Labmate says, “Bhai, yeh toh automatic email hai.”
Bhaskar does not tell his labmate that this ruined his entire evening.
“Decision on your manuscript.”
Bhaskar’s hands are shaking.
Opens the email slowly.
“We regret to inform you…”
The word “regret” does the damage.
Everything after “regret” is just noise.
The Reviews
Reviewer 1:
“This is an excellent and well-written paper. The methodology is sound and the results are impressive. I recommend minor revisions.”
Bhaskar smiles.
Reviewer 1 is a good human being.
Reviewer 1 understands research.
Bhaskar would like to meet Reviewer 1 and have chai with him.
Reviewer 2:
“I have serious concerns about this manuscript.”
Of course you do.
“The authors claim novelty but this work is clearly inspired by Zhang et al. 2019.”
Bhaskar checks Zhang et al. 2019.
He has never seen this paper in his life.
He reads it.
It is about something completely different.
Reviewer 2 has not read either paper.
Reviewer 2 continues:
“The results in Figure 3 are suspicious.”
Figure 3 is a straight line.
It is supposed to be a straight line.
It is literally proof that the system is stable.
Bhaskar stares at Figure 3 for ten minutes.
Figure 3 stares back.
Neither of them understands what Reviewer 2 wants.
Reviewer 2 continues again:
“The authors should compare with state-of-the-art methods from 2024.”
The paper was submitted in 2024.
Reviewer 2 wants comparison with papers that do not exist yet.
Reviewer 2 exists outside of time.
Final comment from Reviewer 2:
“Overall this paper needs significant work before it can be considered for publication.”
Significant work.
Six months of research.
One patent.
Two hundred simulations.
Significant work.
Bhaskar Pandey closes the laptop.
Goes to the mess.
Eats dal-chawal silently.
Comes back.
Opens the laptop.
Starts writing the rebuttal.
The Rebuttal
What Bhaskar writes:
“We thank Reviewer 2 for their valuable and insightful comments. We have carefully considered each point and made significant revisions…”
What Bhaskar means:
“Reviewer 2 clearly did not read the paper. Figure 3 is supposed to be a straight line. Zhang et al. 2019 is about fish farming. We have no idea what you want from us.”
Guide reviews the rebuttal.
Guide: “Bhaskar, this line — ‘we respectfully disagree’ — change it.”
Bhaskar: “To what, sir?”
Guide: “To ‘we thank the reviewer for this excellent point.’”
Bhaskar: “But sir, they are wrong…”
Guide: “Everyone is wrong. Nobody cares. Just get it published.”
Three months later
Paper accepted.
Bhaskar checks who Reviewer 2 was.
He will never know.
Reviewer 2 is anonymous.
Reviewer 2 will always be anonymous.
Reviewer 2 is everywhere and nowhere.
Reviewer 2 is the darkness itself.
THE END
Dedicated to every Reviewer 2 who ever lived.
We know what you are.
“If you survived a paper rejection and still kept going you’re not alone.
I wrote about the real emotional side of PhD life.
Happy to share if interested.