Good references is also one of the strong part of a research. Proper references reflects the worth of the research.

In my openion, good references and primary references should always be used to justify the study by telling the reader what has not been done and what has been done by previous investigators. The references should also be limited to the pertinent papers. Thus, lack of citations of the important and accurate references in the manuscript may discourage the referee to accept the manuscript.

As a referee for journals and conference publications I can tell you that I look at the abstract, the conclusions and right after that at the timeliness of the references. If they're too old, then the question is why the authors confronted that topic. But I wouldn't reject the paper right away, rather I would recommend improvements.

Remember that referees are just a bunch of us academics trying our best. And as RG shows we vary a lot in what we think. Some referees will let poor referencing go with a few words to help you improve and some will really hammer you. I also know (from experience) that some referees get upset if you haven't quite used the 'house style' - so if the journal asks for single-line spacing make sure you follow their guidance. My own perspective is that we should try to get everything perfect before we send work off - why risk a rejection if you know you have an area that needs improvement? The whole review process takes time so you might as well get things as good as you can at the start of the process.

Mr. Sherif, you have asked a very good question but sometimes regarding the overall subject matter of the paper, selectors rejects it on the basis of week references. The reason is very simple and logical to a greater extent that when an author provides detailed, exhaustive, reliable and elucidated references, the work is considered more substantial and authentic. It proves that the author has considered various sources and has a sound knowledge about the subject of the article and it cannot always be the reason for rejection.

Hope you got the answer.

With good "objective, methods, results and conclusion" I (as a referee) would not suggest rejections, but mostly "major revision". The problem is that sometimes weak references have implications on the content quality, e.g., failing to correctly frame a proposal in the current state of the art or to evaluate how much innovative it is, or defining the novelty of an issue based on 10-year old literature, etc. In such cases, weak references might lead to rejection because they imply flaws in the paper content. So, it is not possible to sharply answer yes or no to your question; it depends on how much the weak references impact on the correctness of the study.

Thanks Dettori, but it can be rejected as you said due to lack or weak references. I agree with you, I am wondering how it can be good, e.g., objective, if he/she did not tell us what has previously been done exactly, sometimes, it can be e.g., repeatation ??? or the discussion section is not cited an important paper that will modify the conclusion.

@Erik, quite a lot of authors try to meet submission deadlines of conferences and journals, e.g. for reasons of university policy. This may lead to weak parts of the paper, which still could be remedied after revision. So, I agree with @Giuliana and @George: papers that are based on sound research questions, methods, results and discussion should get a chance for improvement.

@Michael, I take your point and know that colleagues can be under pressure to submit articles by university policy/management. So whilst I agree that it is the core of the paper that is important rather than the procedural aspects and that colleagues are influenced by deadlines, I still would want to avoid the heartache of being rejected just because of citations/references. In this instance the policy seems to be the problem, as it is better to have a policy that gets good work published than a policy that simply tries to hurry us into publication.

As right as rain, @Erik. Institutions that want to achieve good results from research should be more flexible with their faculty, say patient. As referees we cannot change the rules of institutions, though; what we can do is to change our stance on the review process.

There might be an easier solution which is available to anyone working in an organisation with a library and that is to contact the Librarian to complete a search for available literature. They may also be able to help with specific search techniques.

well, missing important refernces do creat a ground for rejection. As manyatimes autor acvoid to cite the articles which are closely related to their work so as to implicate the novelty of their work. under such scenario it may lead to rejection as referre may feel deceived.

As a referee or examiner, I would often look at the quality of references and referencing first. I know that researchers always touch up their references last, and a rushed or poor job reveals itself here.

"Quality of references" refers to the trustworthiness of the cited material. For example, is the writer using newspaper articles rather than academic papers?

"Quality of referencing" refers to the meticulous attention that is required to detail and accuracy in the references section.

If the referee or examiner knows about some references you are unaware of, you can benefit inestimably by taking this into account in your revised paper or thesis.

I agree with you Miras and Kennedy, it can be rejected if major references (primary references and recent one is not cited and discussed in the article, it can also be nothing to add or the findings provided by early.