Dear Lukhanyo, I'm afraid some editors (and reviewers) are not objective. That is why the same paper is rejected by a specific journal while it is accepted by another of approximately the same level.

I wish you the best of luck in your research and the publication of your papers!

There are many factors involved in such a decision.  Just because the editor makes a decision different from what a reviewer has recommended does not mean it is a case of unfair dealing.

For example, I know of a prestigious journal that receives MANY more papers than it can publish.  They have a rule that if a paper is not approved after ONE revision, it will be automatically rejected.  This is because papers submitted to a prestigious journal SHOULD be nearly ready to publish.  Too many revisions means it may not have been a strong paper to begin with.

Hi Lukhanyo,

I do agree with Soultana that there are certainly some editors and reviewers that are not objective...at least not always.  People tend to be swayed by their biases with regard to methodologies, their pet theoretical stances, or even because they believe their work was not cited.  All these things have/do happen...unfortunately, this is part of human nature.  Also, those of us who have had manuscripts rejected often seem to see such types of...unfairness...occur when our work is reviewed...I certainly have believed that when I get reviews back!

To publish you do have to develop a tough skin and learn to constructively take criticism and rejection....but to keep at it. Especially, use those comments that you believe are fair to improve your work.  Remember that you are essentially getting a free consultation from a serious researcher when someone provides a strong review of your manuscript....they have done a lot of work and it is for free!  And, as Soultana says, other journals and their editors and reviewers may often give different reviews. 

As an editor, however, I must say that the decision to reject something that a reviewer does not outright reject...or even does not reject at all...sometimes occurs because it was not a strong review.  Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get good reviewers for manuscripts.  Even those who are willing to review are sometimes so pressed for time that they do not do an adequate job....and may simply do a cursory review that may miss serious problems with a manuscript.  It is also the case that reviewers may not want to be responsible for rejection of another's manuscript so they stop short of doing so.  That is why two reviewers are often used AND the editor or an associate editor does make the final decision...To be an Editor means the ultimate responsibility for the quality of the journal is yours and you need to take it seriously. Like so much in academe and in the sciences and humanities, the idea of true objectivity so a myth....this is yet another social process that operates on the basis of human nature....But we strive for better... 

Dear Micheal

I have encountered, in many cases, that the editor does not even give the authors a single chance to revise, they simply go for a rejection. I understand your point, when you say that prestigious journals most of the times gets more papers than it can publish, but that does not mean that the editor must ignore the reviewers recommendations. I understand you clearly though

Dear Jack and Soultana

I appreciate your response and input, it provided a lot of clarity on certain things. I also agree with what Soultana said. I have learnt something