What to do to have your paper rejected!

Mohammad Sal Moslehian,Rahim Zaare-Nahandi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1504.03789

2015-04-15

Abstract:We aim to highlight certain points and considerations for graduate students and young researchers, which should be avoided in submissions to good research journals. Observing these remarks could substantially decrease the probability of rejections of papers.

History and Overview

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Problems in papers of graduate students majored in geotechnical engineering

Zhou Jian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-2909.2009.02.033

2009-01-01

Abstract:A solid professional knowledge and a strict scientific attitude are the basic guarantee for scientific research.Nowadays,many problems appear in research papers of geotechnical engineering,which affect the paper quality and lead to unreliable results.This phenomenon has great influence.It not only wasted research resources but also led up to a false,impetuous research culture.The author analyzed widespread problems from the aspects of theoretical research,experimental research and numerical analysis,and verified them by examples,which provided full understanding about these problems to students and supervisors.Furthermore,supervisors need to be stricter in instructions to improve the quality of the graduate papers.
Getting Your Scholarly Papers Published: A Guide on How to Avoid the Top Ten Most Common Causes of Paper Rejection

Dickson Adom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v14i1.1058

2024-09-04

Journal of Academic Writing

Abstract:Scholarly writing and publishing are activities marked by intellectual honesty, integrity, and excellence. Together, they are an indispensable requirement for academics to maintain and sustain their careers in various academic institutions. However, in higher education institutions, the infamous aphorism 'publish or perish' has resulted in unethical academic practices. These practices derail the quality expected of scholarly writing and publishing. This paper is a collection of advice to novice writers on the ten most common reasons why scholarly papers are rejected, offering sound solutions to these problems. Though an unpleasant experience, scholarly paper rejection keeps authors on guard against unethical academic writing practices. It helps them to transform their scholarly papers to meet the high standards of academia. The paper contends that scholarly paper rejection is an important activity in scholarly writing and publishing because it ensures quality in academic knowledge production and dissemination.
Editorial: How to develop a quality research article and avoid a journal desk rejection

Yogesh K. Dwivedi,Laurie Hughes,Christy M.K. Cheung,Kieran Conboy,Yanqing Duan,Rameshwar Dubey,Marijn Janssen,Paul Jones,Marianna Sigala,Giampaolo Viglia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102426

IF: 18.958

2022-02-01

International Journal of Information Management

Abstract:The desk rejection of submitted articles can be a hugely frustrating and demotivating process from the perspective of the researcher, but equally, a time-consuming and vital step in the process for the Editor, tasked with selecting appropriate articles that meet the required criteria for further review and scrutiny. The feedback from journal Editors within this editorial, highlights the significant gaps in understanding from many academics of the journal assessment process and acceptance criteria for progression to the review stage. This editorial offers a valuable "lived-in" perspective on the desk rejection process through the lens of the Editor, via the differing views of nine leading journal Editors. Each Editor articulates their own perspectives on the many reasons for desk rejection, offering key insight to researchers on how to align their submissions to the specific journal requirements and required quality criteria, whilst demonstrating relevance and contribution to theory and practice. This editorial develops a succinct summary of the key findings from the differing Editor perspectives, offering a timely contribution of significant value and benefit to academics and industry researchers alike.

information science & library science
Why did we reject your paper?

Til Wykes,Alan Simpson,Martin Guha,Angela Sweeney,Alison Bates,Domenico Giacco,Dan Fulford,Sarah Hope Lincoln

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2024.2346482

2024-05-29

Journal of Mental Health

Abstract:The number of papers submitted to this journal has increased exponentially. This means considering papers that are likely to be of interest to our readership and that might pass peer review. This inevitably results in high rejection rates. All editors find it hard to engage peer reviewers, so we only want to send them papers likely to pass our high publication threshold, and in the last month this number was only 11% of papers. In a previous editorial we described the issues we face as editors in weeding out papers that are sham or misleading - i.e. come from paper mills or are papers with authorship for sale (Wykes & Parkinson, Citation 2023 ). We try to provide reasonable timelines to a decision, especially for those papers that we consider will not ultimately meet publication threshold, so authors are quickly able to consider alternative outlets. This editorial is an attempt to help authors as they consider the journal for their submissions and specifically contains advice on what to avoid. We do hope you will read it.

psychology, clinical
How to handle a rejection. Teaching course presentation at the 21st European Stroke Conference, Lisboa, May 2012

Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian,Michael G Hennerici

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000347106

Abstract:The rejection rate by scientific journals may be rather high, sometimes up to 70-90%. On receipt of notification of rejection, one may experience various stages of the Kübler-Ross grief cycle--denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, with an initial shock and an intermediate 'testing' stage. A paper may be rejected because of several reasons, such as the following: (1) it was submitted to an inappropriate journal, (2) journal format was not followed, (3) reading was not interesting or scientific/clinically sound, (4) topic was not current, (5) research was not novel, (6) low publication priority despite the absence of major flaws, (7) poor En-glish/writing style, (8) poor methods and statistics, (9) unbelievable results that were not properly discussed and (10) 'recycled' paper. Plagiarism is not tolerated. Simultaneous submission to 2 or more journals is not allowed. Outright rejection sometimes occurs in 70-80%; for 10-15%, the editor rejects without sending the paper to reviewers for obvious reasons as mentioned. For the majority, reviewers give feedback that leads to the editor rejecting the paper. On receiving notification of rejection, one should read the feedback and consider its contents prior to rewriting and submitting the paper to another journal (sometimes reviewers may see the same manuscript several times if asked by different editors). An invitation to resubmit 'de novo' occurs in only 1-5% of submissions; it requires substantial revision before resubmission. Being rejected but invited to resubmit a revised version occurs in 5-20% of submissions--it indicates a good chance of acceptance; one should carefully read the feedback and respond/comply with all suggestions. Papers rejected repeatedly may have 'fatal flaws' and are best abandoned.
Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Evgenios Agathokleous

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-021-01388-8

2021-09-16

Journal of Forestry Research

Abstract:Are you a student at a higher institution or an early-career researcher who is striving to understand and master the peer review process so to increase the odds of getting a paper published in the Journal of Forestry Research or another reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific journal? In this paper, a young, senior editor provides a handbook of the peer review process based on his decadal experience in scientific publishing. He covers major information you need to know during the entire process, from selecting journals to completing the proofing of your accepted paper. He introduces key points for consideration, such as avoidance of predatory journals, dubious research practices and ethics, interaction with peers, reviewers, and editors, and the pursuit of aretê. Finally, he points out some common statistical errors and misconceptions, such as P hacking and incorrect effect size inference. He hopes that this paper will enhance your understanding and knowledge of the peer-review process.

forestry
Writing Manuscripts Better: Part I (The introduction, methods, results, and discussion format)

Subramanian Shankar,Hegde Arun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-3698.364670

2022-12-22

Indian Journal of Rheumatology

Abstract:Many young researchers face extreme difficulties while writing scientific articles, and there is seldom any specific training imparted as a part of under and postgraduate curriculums toward the art of presenting research work in written format. Yet, the publication is considered essential toward career advancement and for obtaining academic qualifications. We herein discuss the basic steps to follow in writing a scientific article using the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion format. The Introduction explains the scope and objective of the study in the light of current knowledge on the subject; the Materials and Methods describes how the study was conducted; the Results section reports what was found in the study; and the Discussion section explains the meaning and significance of the results and provides suggestions for future directions of research. We enumerate the main elements that should appear in these sections, and some pointers for making the overall result attractive and acceptable for publication. We also have placed special emphasis on the methods section (Finer nuances of data collections, Informed consent, steps to seek approval by the Institutional Ethics Committee and authorship directives as per IJCME guidelines), Results (How to highlight the results of the study using illustrations, charts, and legends, and Discussion section ("Structured approach" and the "Divide and rule" approach). A hastily written article with incorrect methodology remains the primary reason for rejection by the journal reviewers, and following the above directives would contribute toward obtaining a fruitful result.

English Else
Decoding the Rejection Code: Understanding Why Articles Get Axed

Vishal V Bhende,Tanishq S Sharma,Mathangi Krishnakumar,Anikode Subramanian Ramaswamy,Kanchan Bilgi,Saptak P Mankad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.56920

2024-03-25

Cureus

Abstract:In the competitive arena of medical publishing, manuscript rejection remains a significant barrier to disseminating research findings. This editorial delves into the multifaceted nature of manuscript rejection, elucidating common reasons and proposing actionable strategies for authors to enhance their chances of acceptance. Key rejection factors include a mismatch with journal scope, lack of novelty, methodological flaws, inconclusive results, ethical issues, poor presentation, data inaccessibility, author misconduct, and plagiarism. Ethical lapses, such as lacking informed consent, or submissions fraught with grammatical errors, further doom manuscripts. In addressing these pitfalls, authors are advised to ensure content originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and clear presentation. Aligning the manuscript with the journal's audience, scope, and editorial standards is crucial, as is professional conduct and responsiveness to feedback. Leveraging technological tools for citation management, grammar checking, and plagiarism detection can also significantly bolster manuscript quality. Ultimately, understanding and addressing common rejection reasons can empower authors to improve their submissions, contributing to the advancement of medical knowledge and their professional growth.
Publishing in high quality journals: perspectives from overworked and unpaid reviewers

Linda Bol,Douglas J. Hacker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9073-7

2013-12-28

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

Abstract:AbstractOur purpose for this article is to provide suggestions on how to get your high quality research published from the perspectives of reviewers. First, good writing is good thinking, and you are much more likely to succeed when you combine good writing with sound research. We then offer an eight-step method of reviewing that may help the author better understand how to present and understand the research. Next, we describe ways to identify high quality journals, including acceptance rates, impact factor, Eigenfactors, and Article Influence scores. In the following section, we address common criteria used to rate articles, possible decisions, and how to revise the manuscript in response to reviewers’ comments. We present an example table of responses to reviewers’ critiques. We conclude with further advice for more novice researchers. Become a reviewer to help you better understand the process and peers’ expectations. Highlight the caliber of your research by citing journal metrics when being considered for promotion or hiring. Finally, frame negative reviews as an opportunity to improve your work and keep trying to publish your research despite criticisms.

education & educational research
Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers

Saida Hidouri,Hela Kamoun,Sana Salah,Anis Jellad,Helmi Ben Saad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154614.1

2024-08-13

Abstract:Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods: Opinion article. Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.
Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication

Ehsan Roohi,Omid Mahian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9549-5

IF: 3.777

2015-01-01

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings (scientific journals). Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papers.
How Visualization PhD Students Cope with Paper Rejections

Shivam Agarwal,Shahid Latif,Fabian Beck

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.00406

2020-09-26

Abstract:We conducted a questionnaire study aimed towards PhD students in the field of visualization research to understand how they cope with paper rejections. We collected responses from 24 participants and performed a qualitative analysis of the data in relation to the provided support by collaborators, resubmission strategies, handling multiple rejects, and personal impression of the reviews. The results indicate that the PhD students in the visualization community generally cope well with the negative reviews and, with experience, learn how to act accordingly to improve and resubmit their work. Our results reveal the main coping strategies that can be applied for constructively handling rejected visualization papers. The most prominent strategies include: discussing reviews with collaborators and making a resubmission plan, doing a major revision to improve the work, shortening the work, and seeing rejection as a positive learning experience.

Human-Computer Interaction
Readership Awareness Series – Paper 14: The Submission Dilemma – How to Choose a Journal?

Mohammad Javed Ali Ali Djalilian a Editor-in-Chief,Seminars in Ophthalmologyb Former Editor-in-Chief,Ocular Surface

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2024.2424079

2024-11-02

Seminars in Ophthalmology

Abstract:Finding a suitable home for a scientific manuscript can be a demanding task. Recent times have seen a significant surge in the number of journals available for receiving submissions within each specialty and subspecialty of medicine. This increases the number of options for authors and provides them with several more avenues to publish their work. However, it parallelly increases the level of uncertainty. Choosing the right journal is challenging, and several factors influence this decision. Citation 1–4 The present editorial lists five major factors that prospective authors should consider while choosing a journal to publish their work. The sequence is not sacrosanct and reflects the editors' preference based on their experience.

ophthalmology
Criteria and Tips for Choosing Suitable Journal for Your Paper

Mohamed Hammad

2023-11-20

Abstract:Selecting the right journal for your research paper is a pivotal decision in the academic publishing journey. This paper aims to guide researchers through the process of choosing a suitable journal for their work by discussing key criteria and offering practical tips.

Digital Libraries
Red flags in submissions to Optometry and Vision Science

David B. Elliott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/opx.0000000000002133

2024-04-30

Optometry and Vision Science

Abstract:After only a few months as Editor in Chief of Optometry and Vision Science ( OVS ), it may seem a little early to write an editorial on how to ensure that your paper gets a full review in OVS ! However, those few months have seen over 300 submissions, and the papers being submitted are not dissimilar to those submitted to Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics in the early years when I was Editor in Chief. Many contain all too familiar errors, and currently, our acceptance rate is down to around 15%. Papers are triaged by me and the Editorial Board, and through that system, about 25% get through to a full review. Triaged decisions are typically made within 3 to 6 days of submission, so at least, the authors receive a quick decision and can revise their paper and submit elsewhere if they wish. The triage process also limits the work requested from reviewers who would otherwise be asked to review these weak submissions. This editorial is written for inexperienced researchers and PhD students and will describe the "red flags" that suggest a weak paper and possible early rejection, plus a couple of "green lights" (that direct you along the path to publication) at the end to finish on a positive note.

ophthalmology
New Trend of Paper Repetitive Submission and Preventive Countermeasures

Zhongyi Huang

2005-01-01

Abstract:From the phenomenon of paper repetitive submission in academic journal encountered(during) the actual work,this paper analyzes the psychology and motivations of the writers,in the mean time,describes the kinds of causes of such problems in the discriminative point of view.At last,this paper provides some suggestions to(probe) the measures effectively restricting such(abnormal) academic tendency.
A Pragmatic Approach to Getting Published: 35 Tips for Early Career Researchers

Natasha M. Glover,Ioanna Antoniadi,Gavin M. George,Lars Götzenberger,Ruben Gutzat,Kadri Koorem,Pierre Liancourt,Kinga Rutowicz,Krishna Saharan,Wanhui You,Philipp Mayer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00610

IF: 5.6

2016-05-09

Frontiers in Plant Science

Abstract:It is trite to say "publish or perish," yet many early career researchers are often at a loss on how to best get their work published. With strong competition and many manuscripts submitted, it is difficult to convince editors and reviewers to opt for acceptance. A pragmatic approach to publishing may increase one's odds of success. Here, we - a group of postdocs in the field of plant science - present specific recommendations for early career scientists on advanced levels. We cannot provide a recipe-like set of instructions with success guaranteed, but we come from a broad background in plant science, with experience publishing in a number of journals of varying topics and impact factors. We provide tips, tricks, and tools for collaboration, journal selection, and achieving acceptance.

plant sciences
Letter to the editor: Against the Resilience of Rejected Manuscripts

Nicolas Robinson-Garcia,Daniel Torres-Salinas,J.M. Campanario,Emilio Delgado López-Cózar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1309.2409

2013-09-10

Abstract:In this letter we propose the development of guidelines by the main editors associations as well as protocols within online journal management systems for keeping track of rejected manuscripts that are resubmitted as well as for the interchange of referees reports between journals.

Digital Libraries
How can editors better serve authors?

YAN Tingmei,REN Yangang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2013.04.023

2013-01-01

Abstract:Rejecting manuscripts is an importance link in journal publishing that editors always have to face.Inappropriate handling of rejection will influence many authors.Generally,authors are not satisfactory with editors' service mainly because of two reasons: editors did not contact authors before the due time,and the letter for rejection is not detailed.In this paper,we discuss how to better serve authors taking Chinese Journal of Practical Internal Medicine as an example.We suggest that manuscripts solicitation should be emphasized,more young editorial board members should be invited to review manuscripts and detailed information should be provided in the letter for rejection.Through these effective measures,we can provide better services for authors.
Common Mistakes Committed and Challenges Faced in Research Proposal Writing by University of Aden Postgraduate Students

Lamis Abdulrahman Hasan Abdullah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20428/jss.v29i1.2070

2023-04-06

Journal of Social Studies

Abstract:The purpose of this study is to investigate the common mistakes committed by the postgraduate students as well as the challenges they faced during writing their proposals. The study obtained a convince sampling in which 15 postgraduate students of English Department, University of Aden were recruited. In this study, the data was collected by using the students' proposals, and their correction forms, as well as using focused group discussion. The researcher analyzed the data and used qualitative analyses i.e., content-based analyses by highlighting the main themes. The findings of the study indicated that the majority of the postgraduate students committed common mistakes such as the choice of an appropriate title, unclear statement of the problem, writing irrelevant literature review, choosing inappropriate methodology, references system was not clear and some plagiarism issues. Moreover, it was investigated that the postgraduate students generally had some challenges in using standard proposal format, writing literature reviews, methodology skills and other supervision issues. These findings are of great importance for instructors at postgraduate program.

What to do to have your paper rejected!

Problems in papers of graduate students majored in geotechnical engineering

Getting Your Scholarly Papers Published: A Guide on How to Avoid the Top Ten Most Common Causes of Paper Rejection

Editorial: How to develop a quality research article and avoid a journal desk rejection

Why did we reject your paper?

How to handle a rejection. Teaching course presentation at the 21st European Stroke Conference, Lisboa, May 2012

Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Writing Manuscripts Better: Part I (The introduction, methods, results, and discussion format)

Decoding the Rejection Code: Understanding Why Articles Get Axed

Publishing in high quality journals: perspectives from overworked and unpaid reviewers

Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers

Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication

How Visualization PhD Students Cope with Paper Rejections

Readership Awareness Series – Paper 14: The Submission Dilemma – How to Choose a Journal?

Criteria and Tips for Choosing Suitable Journal for Your Paper

Red flags in submissions to Optometry and Vision Science

New Trend of Paper Repetitive Submission and Preventive Countermeasures

A Pragmatic Approach to Getting Published: 35 Tips for Early Career Researchers

Letter to the editor: Against the Resilience of Rejected Manuscripts

How can editors better serve authors?

Common Mistakes Committed and Challenges Faced in Research Proposal Writing by University of Aden Postgraduate Students