Hi Tebbi!

A reviewer should always take a positive attitude and do his/her best to improve a manuscript. Rejection is advised only if it can be shown that data are wrongly interpreted or that the subject matter is trivial. As editor of an international journal I have recently compiled PPT-presentations on how to write papers and how to do good reviews of papers. The pdf of how to do a good review is attached.

Regards

Burg Flemming

Lack of novelty, plagiarism, vague grammatical mistakes and lack of sufficient literature support are major concerns. Another thing is what the paper is going to give or add to the existing knowledge about the topic. Is it run-of-a-mill or an average work which will make no difference with respect to scientific work done previously also needs to be taken into consideration.

In addition to the points mentioned, a paper could be rejected because it doesn't fit the topic of a journal or doesn't follow the formatting guidelines (for example it is way too long). This can be easily fixed in advance and is just carelessness of the authors.

In general a clean reject means that the reviewers sees no hope to fix a paper without rewriting large portions of it (or even doing new research first). Since the reviewers endorse the contents of a paper, rejection means that they will never support your work.

Flawed research. Incoherent English. Dubious data.

I would rather give the authors a chance to improve upon their submission, instead of outrightly rejecting it if it contains some thing of value to the pool of knowledge. However, if the submission is poor in conceptualization, presentation, novelty, methodology, and conclusions etc. I would recommend rejection of the said paper

Agree with all of the above. Also, follow the Instructions and Guidelines for Reviewers by the journal's Editor and Editorial Board. The criteria for some journals provide more lattitude and flexibility to allow author's to revise a manuscript than others using the reviewers' critical comments and suggestions for revision..

Yes - all good points. As a reviewer for over 30 international journals - i prefer reviewing for those that have at least a degree of initial editorial screening. That way, I know that the manuscript has already undergone a 'mini-review' and seen as at least potentially appropriate for the journal audience. It's unlikely to result in an outright reject. With journals that do not do this - i have had the (mis)fortune to review some real 'shockers' that have no chance of ever finding publication i.e. very poor construction, lack of knowledge, methodological errors, little reference to journal house-style etc.

I professionally feel that it is plagiarism as well as novelty of the reported work which makes it unfit for publication without even giving the chance to revise it.

You mention "e.g. plagiarism, insufficient literature review, a lack of novelty....?" Of these, the latter two are issues which may or may not merit a second shot, depending on quantity of the deficiency.

Plagiarism, however, is a species of fraud, a crime. It is an overt dishonesty, unlike the other two. Trust is a key element in the progress of science. How is one to believe anything written in a paper by a person who was already prepared to fraudulently claim originality for material he did not originate? One cannot, and should not. Neither should any journal publish any paper contaminated by plagiarism, or data falsification, or the appearance of a citation club or of gift authorships, etc. The Council of Science Editors’ Style Manual is a good source for the ethical expectations in publication.

I agree that plagiarism should be punished and 'copy-paste' papers should be rejected..

Yes, plagiarism should be rejected at first sight.

I would reject a paper definitively if I´ve the impression the authors tell trivialities or make strong principle errors and I don´t find any scientific news.

I strongly believe that plagiarism and especially the submission of a same already published work (article) with several changes (not in content, but in presentation) compared to the version published is the first reason to reject a submitted paper without letting authors to revise it. By the way I have been invited last week to review a paper and I’ve found that the submitted work has already been published, so I proposed to the editor-in-chief of that journal (with Impact Factor) to reject that paper immediately. Other strong reasons for immediate rejection include the absence of any originality, the adoption of a non scientific methodology which would lead to obtain data that cannot be scientifically validated, and also when the submitted paper do not fits at all the aims and scope of the journal.

I always use iThenticate to check for plagiarism before I start a review. Yes, plagiarism leads to immediate rejection.

Always plagiarism

in all other cases it depends on he journal ranking

Self-plagiarism is more dangerous than plain plagiarism!

Dear Hemanta,do you point out that citing oneself is worse than steeling informations of other scientists?

Dear Hanno,

No, no, I am not referring to self-citation! Sometimes, people submit articles almost similar in content in different conferences. That is what I meant by self-plagiarism.

Dear Hemanta, I got it. I try to remember my own students time. We were forced to present our results in conferences, short visits in important instituts and learned by this way to write, concentrate on special points of view and show the different aspects of a research result. I´ve problems to define a significant borderline between plagiarism and this kind of self citation I tried to explain.

The first thing to check is the correct connection of ideas. Then the structure of the text and proficiency in the language.

And third, if there was plagiarism.

Overcome these steps come the questions: is an article that deserves to be published? It fits in the journal to which it was presented?

Most journals publish a Guide for Authors for submission of manuscripts. Suggest everyone read these guidelines closely for specific polices for individual journal editoral policies.

Tiia Vissak

When reviewing, the reviewer’s responsibility is to make sure that the material presented in the paper is not duplicating the already available knowledge about the subject, has sound basis for any theory proposed, the conclusions drawn are valid and are based on the presented analysis and results, and generally follows the accepted tenets in the particular domain in question.

Based on one’s own experience in the particular area the reviewer should have some idea of about the clear contribution of the paper to the knowledge base, as to whether it is adding to or reinforcing the already known principles. Based on the above principles provided the reviewer should decide the action as to ask for minor changes, major revision or rejection.

I normally reject (as a last resort) a paper if the contribution is very marginal and there is no way it can be improved unless a major effort is expended. Sometimes the presentation is based on some theory that is already known and part of textbooks, then it does not warrant publication. If the contribution is good, and language and presentation needs to be improved it will be suggested but not outright rejected.

I rejected few days ago a "fake paper". It was interesting to me to discover that this happened but also was furious and complained to the editor (in separate email in addition to the online form ) because it should have been pre-filtered. The journal blocked the author and started an investigation on the issue (as been told). Auto generated papers in computer science can be generated automatically by Scigen (http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/), try it and beware of such papers. The website can generate for you a full paper with graphs analysis, sections and subsections, conclusions, references,...etc. Thanks. @AlDmour.

Well, I did not know that a paper, or something that perhaps looks like a paper, can be prepared automatically! Is this kind of a thing happening in Computer Science only?

Guys you are great reviewers, because you reject for reasonable reasons.

i had some papers rejected for non of the above mentioned reasons, normally, no reason at all! or sometimes the comment of the reviewer/editor implies that my paper never read thoroughly.

Agree with Ruchi. For many journals the Editor provides a set of reviewers comments to the author with the decision to accept, reject, or accept with revision.

Any research activity which is flawed must be rejected. But the corresponding author must get the chance to explain the reviewer's remark to the Journal EIC.

Poorly written or presented, lack of novelty, less data, written without prior full review of literature, repeatition of works, plagiarism and misleading results     

I will reject if the work DOES NOT:

- Meet established ethical standards

- Present reliable and adequate methods or data

- Report anything new

- Fit in the journal scope

If divorced from literature, flawed data and  very far below the standard of the journal

I won't reject a paper unless i found most parts are plagiarized, it is a repeated publication, or a wrong submission (not pertinent to the journal's scope).

How a paper is assessed? Lets see.

----The first I usually check is originality of a paper by the help of a plagiarism checker software. (If there is even 2% similarity with an other submitted paper or website  it will be rejected). It is the only one factor what can cause rejection without debate.

---Then the structure (logic) is examined by the general rules of academic writing. Since the structure can be easily corrected this flaw does not give us enough reason for rejection. 

---Literary background should be based on modern sources (no older than 10 years) excepting basic literatures but the rate of the literature part should not extend than 1/3 of the whole paper excepting it is a theoretical study.

---Next step is the research adequacy and cohesion of aims-methods-results.

---Last one is the part of conclusion and formalities of the document.

Sometimes we submit our research work to conferences for getting more expert views and comments from other well known researchers in that area. After we find that our data is good enough and should be published then we submit that work in the form of a research article to a journal. So there are chances of self plagiarism because the conference organizers sometimes publish abstract book from our work and also the grant awarding organization  ask us to submit a short article which we are going to present in conference. So, i think self plagiarism is not a valid criteria to reject an article.

Yes complete plagiarism or copying others results should be avoided.

Dear @Agnes N. TOTH

I think 2% is very small ratio for plagiarism, you know this kind of software uses Artificial intelligence, which is not mature yet in the area of natural language processing.

we normally refer to our previous work as @Murtaza Sayed said, we refer to other researcher works, sometimes we use the same exact words between double quotes, and sometimes we write a sentence every one can write, its everybody sentence,

for example the sentence: "the proposed system outperforms...." is found using Google in 927,000  in different locations. and other common expressions that's used intuitively by authors such as:

"Are there any concerts?",:=> 501,000 Google results

"There seems to be no compelling reason to argue that" :=> 2,080 Google results 

"In this paper, I put forward the claim that" :=>1,260 Google results 

"What do people usually do in the summer in Los Angeles?" 183,000 results

"A closer look at the data indicates that" 1,630,000 results 

and many other expressions that we normally use, they are the expressions of every body this is a language and every body can use it, they are not an invention of someone!

but even the best software can easily consider such sciences as plagiarism, so the ratio 2% is very unfair,

such software are computer aided systems, i.e. the user should look at the sentences marked as plagiarism and use his own human intelligent to decide whether they are plagiarism, if there is a double quote with a reference, or even if there is a reference after or before the sentence, or if it is a common expression, and focus only on the expressions that indicate the the author claim something to him/herself.

Dear @ Bahram

even if paper is not upto the mark or standard with no novelty may be - will you accept just based on plagiarism free issue, meeting scope of journal and having no duplication / cheating? 

If the paper doesn't value add (plagiarism, cheating, fake data etc) paper should be rejected.

Rejecting wrong papers is important because in future if wrong papers are accepted all papers which cites it mostly will turn up wrong. 

I personally reject a manuscript if :

1. there is no novelty

2. lack of appropriate method and materials particularly statistical methods

3. lack of ethical issues including fabrication and plagarism

A reviewer can recommend an article for rejection under the following conditions.

If the presentation style is not good for a paper containing a good concept may be given a chance to revise it with the help of a language expert.

Want to add some points to @Sudev´s matching list.

- manipulated or invented data

- stolen data without own substantial contribution

- insulting comments about other scientists

- obviously missing the stand of science in the presented field because of low level

Rejected papers include also papers that are already published in another journal or those that are not based on the scientific method of research and have no statistical design and analysis at all. 

I use a very similar approach as Hamidreza Goodarzynejad.

I do not reject. I always give the feedback and chance to the author to improve the MS.

Hi Tebbi!

A reviewer should always take a positive attitude and do his/her best to improve a manuscript. Rejection is advised only if it can be shown that data are wrongly interpreted or that the subject matter is trivial. As editor of an international journal I have recently compiled PPT-presentations on how to write papers and how to do good reviews of papers. The pdf of how to do a good review is attached.

Regards

Burg Flemming

Compiled ppt from Burghard W Flemming is very useful...Thank you for sharing it

When the arguments are not properly connected, correlated as logical, structured or valid. and the data does not support the conclusions

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article

I reject paper if

As a reviewer and editor, I think we should be clear that whatever a reviewer recommends can be overruled by an editor. This has happened to me on one occasion when I knew that all reviewers were happy with the paper, but the editor ended up rejecting it. Also one case where I had made severe criticisms, but found that the editor had accepted the paper with absolutely NO changes from the version I had critiqued. The Editor is boss!

In my experience as a reviewer, and talking to editors, in at least some journals the editor(s) eliminate the manifestly unsuitable without sending it for review. This may seem arbitrary (it is usually because article is off-topic for that journal), but good reviewers are hard to find, and burdening them with rubbish is not going to encourage them to continue.

So as a reviewer, I very rarely get hopeless papers, and in most cases where there are several significant defects, I recommend to the editor that the paper be resubmitted in the light of criticisms. Occasionally, I think that the paper is not of sufficient interest or importance for that journal, and I suggest that the editor tells them to try another journal..

I have only once encountered (self) plagiarism. There are few papers so far from OK in so many ways that I doubt the authors' capacity to correct it. Sometimes, the data simply does not support the conclusions. No amount of rewriting will solve that.

I feel authors should be given a chance of improvement, unless otherwise it is a hard time bound conference proceeding/ book. Journals do have regular issues, so a paper can be given some scope of improvements and be deffered to a later issue, in compliance to the suggestions. Expert Reviewers can also suggest a relevant journal for papers those are out of scope. .

But, i know, i am talking all these from an authors point of view! 

@Burghard W. Flemming: what an excellent ppt !!

                 wish all potential reviewers  follow the Guidelines. .

@Khan Muhammad: thank u sir! I understand what a reviewer's constraints might be but, a bit of liberal attitude and one or two constructive guidelines sometimes can shape the future of researcher. .

and, i know a reviewer does not infinite amount of free time to shape each and every researcher's future. .but, if occasionally we can . .

Dear  Dr. Tiia Vissak

There is no flaw. If a paper is beyond scope of journal, if the work has no value in that area of research, if the paper has quite similarity with the other published research works, if major editing  and language issues ..... Writing author about the reason and then rejecting the paper is not  a flaw in any way. 

I think that unknown or unaccessible main references is sufficient to reject a paper if it does not cover all the empty that it supposes to cannot read such cited references.

I am sure that many reviewers (and editors) like me do want to help the beginner. When I come across good science badly analysed or presented, I try to make detailed constructive comments, even to the extent of  re-analysing or re-writing bits to show the authors what I mean. But this is very time-consuming; I am retired so have more time than most reviewers, but even so there are times when I cannot do this.

I would add one thing: I sometimes come across a paper, not well written, that is obviously part of a recently completed PhD project. WHAT THE HELL WAS THE SUPERVISOR DOING! sometimes, the supervisor's name is on the paper, but since I know very well that they are capable of writing well, I can only assume that they have scarcely glanced at it.. Surely this is part of the training that a student should receive?

Too often, I find myself as editor or reviewer doing the supervisor's job.

In few cases reviewer finds that paper is published in some other journal.

Like Robert, when I review papers I often take much time navigating through texts, which are often poorly written. I give constructive criticism and have gone so far as to rewrite parts so that the authors understand the clearest way to present their research. I usually let he authors know I reviewed their papers so that if necessary, a clarifying dialog may be possible.

Dear Abdul and Faraz:

Faraz: yes, I have had that experience. Sometimes this is OK, but on a few occasions as an editor, I have taken trouble with a paper, sent back to the authors a version I am prepared to accept, just for them to check that my alterations are factually correct, and that they are happy. I never heard again, and I drew the conclusion that I had been exploited for linguistic purposes and then dumped.

Abdul: Very often, the problems are over language. As a native English speaker, I am aware of my privilege, and will always try to clarify meaning. The commonest other faults are a muddle among the sections of the paper: discussion points mixed with results, duplication of what is in the introduction and discussion, bad or inappropriate statistical analysis.  Most papers should need only a short introduction, just enough to explain why you did the work. Some go for a complete literature review.  Often there is speculation beyond what the results demonstrate, and again a lot of discussion that does not relate directly to the results. 

But it is hard to give very general advice.Many problems relate to the nature of the particular project

Only when the author detached from the obvious facts and universally recognized principles.

Plagiarism, Flawed research, Dubious/cooked data, Copied stuff including figures and images besides text, and Wrong numbers/values are some of the reasons for rejection of any paper and such papers should be definitely rejected straight away.

1. the research question is not properly framed

2. Methodology employed is either wrong or not proper/sufficient

3. results don't support the conclusions

5. poor statistics

6. Data not properly presented.

Other factors like poor language, style of referencing etc should not be the reason.

Dear All!

Good overall discussion!

Here just a brief comment on copy-paste:

I advise authors to avoid copy-paste at all costs as it can jeopardize manuscript acceptance. Editors (and reviewers) are today generally supported by software such as 'Ithenticate' which checks copy-paste contents at various levels.

However, one should also note that seemingly high copy-paste scores (e.g. 40%) do not automatically mean that the authors are duplicating previously published results. In many cases I found that parts of an 'Introduction' and large parts of 'Methods' were being repeated without change, while the results were novel. Such copy-paste attitudes are simply stupid as they are invariably exposed. In any case, it is an easy (and also instructive) exercise to simply rewrite sections common to different studies.

Burg Flemming

I think the editor of journal dealing with the plagiarism problem. I reject the paper if there is no originality.

If the paper is affected by plagiarism and lacks support from relevant literature

Lack of novelty.

Plagiarism

According to me, poor communication skills, plagiarism, unexplained methodology and outcomes of the results along with the lack of novelty are the major reasons of paper rejection.

I hardly reject papers considering that I understand the amount of effort and courage that goes into submitting a manuscript. If a paper is flawed, I always highlight areas to improve upon and recommend resubmission. In addition, my willingness to review the paper again. If the paper is out of the scope of the journal, I recommend alt publication medium. It may sounds awkward, but I believe that 'there is no useless idea'. It depends largely on the manners in which they are communicated.

Dear Correspondents

A word on plagiarism. The general definition of plagiarism is "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own" (e.g. Oxford Dictionary). The term "self-plagiarism" is therefore nonsensical. If one's own work (data or text) is being repeated in another publication with oneself as author (co-author) one would speak of "data or text duplication" (sometimes called shingling) which, to be sure, is also a deplorable action. However, as pointed out by myself in an earlier answer, the copy-paste practice of text sections from earlier publications is not necessarily a reason to outright reject a manuscript if, for example, it merely concerns introductory parts or methods sections. In that case an outhor would be asked to revise the text accordingly. This type of duplication will, of course, also be picked up by antiplagiarism software. A reviewer should therefore carefully check precisely what is being duplicated before deciding on how to react.

Burg Flemming

(former Editor-in-Chief of Geo-Marine Letters)

Reviewers should not dwell on plagiarism. In a good journal, before the manuscript is sent to reviewers, an editor is designated to screen the paper and one of the concerns of the editor is to check “plagiarism” and “syntax.” So, plagiarism is not part of your work as a reviewer. The reviewer is assumed to be a person with an expert power; he is versatile in that niche, therefore, he is expected to ascertain the credibility of the research paper.

I recommend Nnamdi's answer

1-Plagiarism (No need to comment)

2-Technical error (this is the end of story at Methods section. No need to continue)

3- Sloppy writing (If an author does not care about his paper then Why should I? No need to waste time instead of the author)

Otherwise the reviewer should insist on accepting. A paper is a report of a scientific study. Don't we like to reinforce an idea with 2-3 papers those exactly say the same thing. I think all reports deserve to be published.

If I see the efforts of the author, I insist on contributing the paper as I can.

If it is trivial, lacking in thought and originality, or just wrong.

When the paper doesn't fit the topic of a journal, the rate of plagiarism is large or the references are insufficient.

@ Tiia Vissak

Flawed or repeated (not original) "research" ..... Fine. How do you all define Flawed Research?? And lack of novelty??? Really?? Do you think all published research papers are result of Great Hypothesis? Plant research is based on Traditional uses.... Would you accept these researches or would reject all stating Lack of novelty or Flawed research?

Hi Saumendu!

You are addressing important points. As a former editor-in-chief of an international journal, let me say this: There is no such thing as bad science because bad science is no science or pseudoscience.

Yes, a research project can be poorly conceived (flawed) but, in general, one can distinguish between simple science and demanding science, with many shades between. For example, in my field of marine sedimentology, the production of a grain-size distribution map of an area not previously investigated would be simple science, but science nevertheless, and it would certainly be novel! It is a necessary first step for which you don't require the formulation of an hypothesis. The motivation is simply that nothing was known about this area.

Once such basic information is available more demanding questions can be asked. Again, that does not per se require the formulation of an hypothesis. Hypotheses are an indispensible requirement in experimental research (both in the lab and in the field).

In investigative field studies of the type outlined above, one would have to be in a fairly advanced research stage before an hypothesis about a specific issue can be formulated. It is the GROWTH OF KNOWLEDGE that matters (to quote Karl Popper), and every bit counts. Therefore, not every scientific investigation must or can be cutting edge science, which itself builds on a huge body of information derived from less demanding research.

In the hope that the above discourse answers some of your questions, I remain,

yours sincerely,

Burg Flemming

It is true that if e.g. 100 studies before have found something (e.g. this effect on that is positive), journals are not interested in publishing the same thing again about a different location. Thus, "nobody has studied this village or lake or... before" is not a good explanation of novelty. If you find something new (e.g. in this location this effect is negative), it is much better.

Hi Rezan & Tiia!

Your points are well taken and I agree that the sole argument that a particular local environment has not been studied before is not a motivation that will convince an editor of an international journal. There has to be more novelty than just that, although such local studies could nevertheless be of great national interest. On the other hand, our understanding of the complexity of particular types of environments or systems has evolved (and is still evolving) by the comparison of many similar (local) systems.Thus, irrespective of whether a study is local, regional or global, the main criterion must always be: what new insights does a study contribute to our understanding of the system in question.

Regards,

Burg

I my opinion, the technical contribution is crucial. Either an innovative work has been done or a good analysis of certain methods have been performed, then it is good candidate for acceptance.

If none of above is done, then it is a good candidate for rejection :P

I think, i will explain why the manuscript did not accept. I also send comments about the manuscript and my information to the authors. I would like the manuscript will be better and accepted in the next submit.

Thanks!

I think there are several critical things should be considered when reject a paper such as theories used, econometric modelling, developing hypotheses, novelty, knowing the literature well and using it appropriately.

Speaking as a reviewer and editor, one thing should be clear: it is the editor that makes a final decision. I have sometimes had contradictory reviews, and have to ask for more. At least one paper I reviewed, and recommended for rejection (complex reasons, but a hint of plagiarism) was nevertheless accepted by the journal.

As a reviewer, it is rare for me to say simply reject: this is because the editor has already rejected the absolutely and obviously inadequate submissions. If there are analytical defects, I will point these out, and, possibly, suggest rejection and resubmission. There are a few that are badly conceived; even the data are not much use.

However, I think there is a much deeper problem. Quite a lot of my own work is by no means "cutting edge". It adds useful data, and may support or contradict a given hypothesis that someone else has produced. The data will be useful to others. Such papers get published, but in relatively specialist or local journals with low impact factors. For me, this is not a problem. I am happy to have added a bit of good data, discussed in context, to the public domain. But I have (aged 75) no career to fight for. I do sometimes recommend rejection but submission to a lower-ranking journal.

But some journals will only take what they think will be highly-cited papers. Several times, I have thought a paper good (as a reviewer), but the journal has rejected it, basically because it is not "interesting" enough, however good the science. Some of these journals have 80-90% rejection rates. I am actually inclined to refuse to review for such journals. A review can take time; but should I spend time on something that has a very high chance of rejection whatever I say?

There are, now, some data journals appearing. This may make everyday, useful work more easily published.

We live in a competitive world, it is thus inevitable that some of our work are rejected and others are accepted. Since coming back to scientific research after spending 15 years in management, I encountered a high share of rejections. Reasons of rejection include 1) not fit into the scope of journal; 2) local interest only; 3) poorly written; to name just a few. Most of these manuscripts are eventually accepted and published elsewhere, not necessarily in lower impact journals.

I agree with Robert about novelty and insight, the two criteria ultimately determine whether a paper will get the nod from at least one editor/reviewers. Above all, have confidence in oneself and in your own work. For if you don't, few others will.

Hi Robert & Zhaogui!

On most points, Robert; I agree with you and have had similar experiences. I am also now 75 and have been Editor-in-Chief of an international (marine oriented) journal for almost 20 years. In one particular case I took the unprecedented step of contacting an editor who rejected a revised manuscript which all three original reviewers (myself included) had accepted because the reasons for rejection were unacceptable to me. His answer was that a fourth reviewer, whom he considered a big name in the business, had rejected the revision. To remedy the gross injustice done to the authors, I offered the authors to publish the manuscript in our journal on the basis of the original reviews and some additional editing on my part. They accepted the offer.

On one point I disagree with you, Robert. There is no evidence that higher impact factor international journals are, as a matter of principle, better than lower impact factor international journals (review journals and regional journals excluded). One has to keep in mind that impact factors are based on quantities not qualities, and that no amount of sophisticated statistics can convert a quantity into a quality! For example, the high impact factor of Nature is the sum of all scientific fields covered by the journal. If broken down to each individual field, then the individual impact factors are on par with those of more dedicated journals - a fact which many highly rated colleagues of mine simply ignore.

To underpin my view, I attach two editorials of mine which, in part, deal with this issue.

Best regards,

Burg Flemming

Burghard,

Thanks for sharing. Yes the current IF system is seriously flawed. Aside from the points raised in your attached two Flemming editorials, the current IF ranked all citations equally, without distinguishing a passing citation and a positive citation. This is probably pertinent to the quantity vs quality issue that you are seriously concerned about.

Yes the current IF system has many negative impacts on young scientists as well as on science. Ideally there should be no cross field comparison in IFs. Unfortunately the real world is far from ideal.

Cheers.

Zhaogui

Hi, Burg,

Sorry if I implied that high-impact journals were the most meritorious. Not intended, and I agree with you and Zhaogui Yan, the system stinks. I also had a bad experience with a paper. Reviewers made criticisms, and we were invited to revise. We did. The assistant editor involved then rejected it, but I later discovered that the reviewers thought that we had met their points and recommended acceptance. The issue here was not the editor's decision per se: their privilege. It was that the reason given (essentially that it was exploratory rather than hypothesis-testing) was apparent at the start. I did engage with the Editor-in Chief, but by then I had published the paper elsewhere. The pressure to find reasons for rejection is simply too great.

I do not give a toss about impact factors. My younger co-authors have to. In one case, the way in which a paper could be published in terms of the grant awarded for the project were, to put it politely, bizarre. We are increasingly being driven by bureaucratic tick-box assessment.

Robert, thanks for your feedback!

As in your case, I no longer have to care about trying to impress the powers that be. However, I still do my best to upgrade the manuscripts of young scientists when I have the opportunity and the science warrants it.

Keep well,

Burg

There are many reasons like the lack of plagiarism, incorrect laboratory analysis, incorrect results, no novelty.

I reject papers that are shoddily written and the purported study conducted is artificial with doubtful findings that does not fit into the study's objectives and/or methodology.

As a reviewer i do my best to pointout the remarks on the papers asking for major revision instead of rejection. But, rejection without asking for revision sometimes is a must in case of very bad writing, pilgarism, very old idea, bad methodology, suspect of fabrication of data and results.

If the manuscript does not have a proper structure, a coherent language, real data, or an adequate interpretation of experimental data.

.