There may be a correlation between the rejection rate and the (mean!) quality of papers published in a journal, when many journals are regarded, but there is no linear dependence. Generally, one should be very careful when trying to find quantitative quality criteria. Metrics are rather often misused to define individual quality whereas the parameters are meaningful only statistically. See also these discussions on criteria and measures of quality:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_could_be_a_next_scientific_quality_evaluation_approach/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does-the-ranking-of-a-journal-relate-to-the-quality-of-articles-that-it-publishes/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How-can-you-judge-on-an-article-whether-it-is-good-or-not/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_quantitatively_assess_the_quality_of_a_peer-reviewed_publication/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_important_are_citations_Are_they_overrated/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_citations_true_benchmark_of_a_quality_work/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_quick_question-Do_citations_really_matter/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_true_that_Journals_with_high_impact_factor_always_publish_high_quality_papers_or_the_papers_in_low_or_no_impact_factor_are_of_lesser_quality/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_quality_of_a_research_paper_is_indicated_by_the_journal_it_has_published_from_or_not_How_do_you_judge_the_quality_of_the_research_paper/1

Dear Obafemi Obajemihi I presume that you mean 82% rejection rate when you talk about a journal with IF 9 (if not I am curious to know which journal you refer to).

In addition to what Wolfgang R. Dick already indicated about the relative value of this 'metric', see the following interesting read: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/dont-worry-about-journal-acceptance-rates-and-heres-why

Best regards.

PS. Some publishers have a strong opinion about (too) high rejection rates, see for example https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2016/01/27/high-impact-fast-decisions-and-reasonable-rejection-rates/ they state “We concluded that rejection rates above 30% are unreasonable and do not serve research and researchers well.”. One way they try to avoid unnecessary high rejection rates is and I quote “In Frontiers’ impact-neutral, specialist review process, editors and reviewers are asked to improve the paper unless it has irreparable errors. Reviewers are not asked to judge the “importance” and “novelty”. We believe this is a subjective evaluation, which we leave for a crowdsourced post-publication review.”.

Hello De Obafemi Obajemihi

It was mentioned by Cemil Keski̇noğlu that the acceptance rate is not utilised as a way of categorising a journal. Beyond formally utilising it this way (or rather, from not doing it), I point out that my experience is that the acceptance rate is NOT directly related to the impact factor.

Yes, it is true that sometimes we have that impression. When I send a manuscript to a high-ranking journal in my field, I have a lower expectation of being accepted and published. Having said that, I say two things, Firstly, I have seen a number of very good articles in journals with low IF. Second, I have manuscripts that were accepted in good IF journals when I totally did not expect it and ones (which I thought were quite good) rejected by low-ranking journals.

In summary, I think it is a perception and bias only. I would not discourage you from sending your work to those high-ranked journals. What I also say is that if you do get rejected by a lower-ranked journal, you will feel less strong and enthusiastic about trying again and giving it a re-format (for your next attempt). I strongly say, "Do not be discouraged!"

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_impact:

"Journal-level metrics are often misinterpreted as a measure for journal quality or article quality. However, the use of non-article-level metrics to determine the impact of a single article is statistically invalid. Moreover, studies of methodological quality and reliability have found that "reliability of published research works in several fields may be decreasing with increasing journal rank",[16] contrary to widespread expectations.[17]"

See also the papers cited in notes 16 and 17.

Hi

There are a lot of studies about the process of peer reviewing. Bornmann (2011) shares some useful insights: „Higher citation rates are not necessarily the result of a paper’s superior scientific quality; instead, they may just show the higher impact or higher visibility of a journal.“ (p. 231). Concerning rejections, he states: „In the total of twelve studies, between 0 percent (Daniel, 1993/2004) and 70 percent (Gordon, 1984) of the rejected manuscripts in a higher quality journal could be tracked. The results of these studies show “that authors do not necessarily move from ‘leading’ journals to less prestigious journals after a rejection” (Weller, 2002, p. 68). (p. 220/221), further: "rejection usually does not kill a paper … a rejected paper usually finds life at another journal” (Gans & Shepherd, 1994, p. 177). In the 1980s Abelson (1980) reported that almost all of the manuscripts rejected by the journal Science were published later in other journals. For manuscripts rejected by the journal AC-IE in 1984, Daniel (1993/2004) determined that 71 percent were subsequently published elsewhere;" (p. 219).

You can find the mentioned literature here:

Abelson, P. H. (1980). Scientific communication. Science, 209(4452), 60-62. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Ann. Rev. Info. Sci. Tech., 45, 197-245.

https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112. Daniel, H.-D. (1993/2004). Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review.

Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH. DOI:10.1002/3527602208.

Gans, J. S., & Shepherd, G. B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles

by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 165–179.

Gordon, M. D. (1984). How authors select journals: A test of the reward maximization model

of submission behavior. Social Studies of Science, 14(1), 27-43.

Weller, A. C. (2002). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ:

Information Today, Inc.

Additionally: Figueredo, E. (2006). The numerical equivalence between the impact factor of journals and the quality of the articles. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 57, 1561-1561. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20418.

Best Anne-Katharina