Most journals use double blind reviews (where the reviewers are anonymous to authors and vice versa), but few journals publish the reviewers' comments alongside the authors’ responses in an open review.
When the authors (through the corresponding author) submit a manuscript to journal, a technical editor takes an initial perusal on the document and decides whether the manuscript meets the basic standard criteria for publication such as referencing style and formatting and lies within the journal's scope for publication, hence can move forward with the document at this point. If not, the manuscript is desk-rejected and is never sent for reviewing. Depending on the journal, most manuscripts are rejected at this stage.
If the manuscript meets this criteria, the editor then sends it (I think) to three or four reviewers who have expertise in the field but have no conflict of interest to this research. It is assumed that the anonymous reviewers will make independent
decisions which will form the basis for consideration in rejecting or not rejecting the manuscript. The reviewers critically read the manuscript and comment on novelty, significance, technical quality and the possible research impact if published.
To some authors, the reasons for rejecting the manuscript looks minor and is not related to the main idea of the proposition, hence wonders whether they should submit a rebuttal to the editors decision (refer the previous discussion by Mumtaz Ali, May 2020: https://www.researchgate.net/post/rebuttal_to_editors_decision).
To the beginners or newbies in competitive research, the rejection of a manuscript can be extremely frustrating and too hard to cope with especially when when the reason for not considering the manuscript for publication is minor and largely unsubstantiated. It sometimes evokes negative responses from the author (refer the previous discussion by Panayiotis Koutentis, November 2013: https://www.researchgate.net/post/When_should_you_challenge_an_editors_decision_to_reject_a_paper)
which may affect their future authorship and submission to the journal.
It is particularly hard to deal with the first rejection when the author looked for the most suitable journal for their paper but will be better placed if the rewrite the manuscript and send it to another prioritized journal. Nevertheless, the authors may be experienced in the field and be well informed in the subject of research and may have preference to this particular journal. What if the authors decide to send a rebuttal to the editors' decision? Will the editors care to read a contrary response and provide a feedback? Is there any chance that the editors will consider it and rescind their decision on the manuscript?
I think this largely depends on the attitude of the editors. Some do consider it.
I would say it is rare to have an editor reverse a decision but it happens in odd cases if there is a compelling reason such as a number of blatant errors in the reviewers comments. Frequently papers are rejected because their contribution to the knowledge base is viewed as minimal. If the journal is really selective with a low acceptance rate then the rejection is not really based on various submission shortcomings, but its based on an assessment that the paper is simply not as strong as other submissions.
Papers get rejected. Accept it. Respond to the criticism. Make 3 big improvements. Submit elsewhere.
Don't take rejection personally. The rejection might have nothing to do with the quality, novelty, or importance. Often the reasons are trivial. Move on! Learn from it!
Also - before resubmitting to another journal be sure to use the reviews to improve it. I occasionally am asked to review a paper that I have reviewed for a prior journal that clearly got rejected, and I inform the editor of this. If he/she still wants me to review I often do. When I see the identical submission without addressing ANY of my prior comments (including spelling mistakes) it doesn't send a message that the authors are interested in making their paper better.
No, it cannot reverse an editor’s decision, which is deemed final. The only thing the author of a rejected manuscript can get is a forward recommendation if the rejection was based on flouting a journal’s aims and scope. The following could be of interest.
Global Enago. (2021, March 9). Know the journey behind an editorial decision in the digital age. Enago Academy. https://www.enago.com/academy/know-the-journey-behind-an-editorial-decision-in-the-digital-age/
Good luck,
I really don't think you can challenge an editor's decision. The editor reads the comments of reviewers thoroughly before deciding upon the fate of the manuscript. Usually good journals send to three reviewers and if two reviewers have rejected the manuscript then there is little chance that it will be accepted. Chief Editor cannot go against the reviewers decisions. So my advice is to submit to another journal after modifying it and correcting it.
This depends on the quality of the journal and its publication provisions, as in most moderate scientific journals, and this is also rare, for example, the presence of multiple errors or texts outside the context of the instructions for publishing scientific research... etc.. It leads to the exclusion or rejection of the research according to the reviewer’s vision. Hence, the editors rely on the reviewers’ evaluations to avoid these problems and therefore the decision of rejection or acceptance is based on that.
However, the rejection decision is not a condition that the research is weak or does not rise to the standards of strong research, but may be due to its lack of conformity with the conditions of the selected journal.
Typically speaking, I do not think appeals on publication decisions meet much success, and particularly if the appeal has a subjective basis. Editors typically have little or no interest in getting drawn into a debate on subjectivities because that is just a waste of their time--especially given that their subjectivity is the only thing that counts for their journal! However, if the appeal (and rebuttal) has an objective basis that indicates that the Editor's decision was substantively based on faulty feedback from the reviewers, good Editors-in-Chief can be open to reconsidering decisions. I don't think that happens very often but it is a possibility because most Editors want to make the right decision rather than just obtusely stand beside a decision based on objectively faulty information. Again, I don't think it happens very often but it is possible. An appeal launched solely on a subjective rebuttal, however, will almost certainly be a complete waste of time and effort--and probably not elevate one's status in their field either.
I also note that reviewers provide feedback on manuscripts and make recommendations but they do NOT make decisions--which is a very good thing because reviewers are often at odds with one another in their feedback in recommendations. It is, instead, Editors who use the feedback and recommendations received from reviewers to make publication decisions. The Editor's role is to use good judgement to arrive at wise decisions on publications for their journals. Both reviewers and editors are important in the process but their roles should not be confused.
Some scientific journals have a demand far exceeding the number of articles they could publish, in order to keep their editorial lines exposed and evaluated by databases. For this reason, I think they can afford to reject other articles. It can also be a time saver: since there are many articles to evaluate, the team of a journal still rejects, if the authors do not respect the requirements, the instructions.
My opinion: the higher the rating of the scientific journal, the lower the chance of receiving an answer from the publisher.
It would be a solution to find out the email from the editor-in-chief and write to him about your dissatisfaction
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking