Reviewers and editors are judging your work, not you

Virtually everyone who submits papers for publication in peer reviewed journals will have some of those papers rejected.  This is particularly true if you are submitting work to prominent journals, so developing a thick(er) skin is essential for a life in research.  Early in my career, rejection was really hard to deal with. Since I didn't have a record or experience to fall back on, it felt as if any rejection was a step backwards professionally. Rejection of my work also stung personally.  I worked hard on that! How can these reviewers and editors think I am not good enough?

As I have advanced in my career, it is easier to recognize rejection (or acceptance) of a specific paper as a judgement on that piece of work, rather than on me personally.  A recent review request really brought this home to me. The editor who requested the review from me had recently handled a paper I submitted to the same journal, and ultimately rejected it. (After submitting to another journal, that paper is now in revision, and I hope and expect will be accepted there.) The paper I reviewed was on a related topic and had some interesting ideas, but ultimately had some substantial flaws and I recommended it not be accepted.  In his letter to the authors, the editor referred to both reviewers as experts in the subject of the paper.  So despite having recently rejected my work, this editor nonetheless sought out my opinion on a closely related paper.  If his rejection of my paper had