That depends on the role I have.
As an editor, I reject quite a lot (based on out of scope submissions, or too limited value to readership (e.g. lack of newness)).
If I commit to review for a conference, I usually get assigned a number of papers for which I did not see the title/abstract beforehand. Furthermore, I know there will only be limited time (and usually willingness) to make revisions. Hence, I may again have a substantial rejection rate.
When I am invited to review a journal submission, I only commit if the paper seems like something I should read anyway. (so part of the papers I might reject if I were to review them, I simply do not accept the review invitation for). Also for revising journal papers there is usually more time and willingness, and I'm also likely the get the revision back to judge again. Hence, with journal articles I'd be more inclined to select 'major revision', or 'revise and resubmit'. Those being the most common assessments.
Finally the standing of a journal may play a role. For a conference or a no or low impact factor journal, you mainly assess the soundness of the work. For a high IF journal (even though this should be done by the editor and not the reviewers), I would be inclined to also judge size of the work and size of the contribution to the literature, and the general interest to the readership. Hence, higher change of reject for high IF journal.
Renee, I think your answer touches all the most important aspects related to the question.
I agree with you about this subject and I usually proceeded accordingly both when I was Associate Editor or when I asked for review as a referee.
Dear Azzam
I have never rejected a research paper and always ask for minor revision or major ones, only once when I had been sure it was a copy one and fake data in article, I asked the editor to check it !
Best regards, Parisa
very few, but I was amazed when they were published. I feel that open access journals are generally not in position of rejection.
For me I rejected more than 60% of the papers i have revised. In addition, the final decisions of the journal also were rejection.
But the acceptance or rejection must built on strong reasons and justifications.
I do not think that all the research during the review will be accepted because it is illogical, as there must be a certain proportion of this research will not be acceptable. According to my practice as a research reviewer, the rejection rate was about 30%,it is depending on the type and severity of the research presented for evaluation.
I have rejected the worst articles in my life especially in terms of the scientific ability in my specialty. Regards
I am always positive in my assessment procedure, and at the same time when I start reviewing, I seeking for standard steps in writing papers, thesis, dissertation, article including plagiarism level, so it depends on many factors. I do not remember the exact number.
Emad
30% of the cases, mainly due to inaccuracies, weak approach and inadequate cross-referencing of facts from previous work by other authors.
Rejection is the last decision for me, I try to review the research more than once to give a greater chance of admission taking into account the scientific level of research.
Afkar
Dear’
I have rejected 6 out of approximately 40 as a reviewer because of so Maney causes.
Thanks
I have never rejected any empirical studies reviewed. What i do in most cases is to ask for major review with enough useful suggestions to help the study better. In case of reviews, rejection is recommended without thinking twice once the works are not thorough.
I am not in favor of rejection until an author is unable to make the advised corrections.
Hi,
Based on my experience as a reviewer of papers for journals I've rejected something like 2 thirds of the overall amount. This is due, mainly, to lack of time to do a thorough review or the fact that the paper is not totally within the scope of my expertise.
In the case of conference papers, the rejection rate is smaller, because I've already committed to participate as a reviewer in that time frame.
Regards,
Vicente
Hi,
I reviewed many papers for various journals, and I rejected a paper only once because it was not in the journal's range of covered fields of science. In many cases, though, I demanded major revisions.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy
- Free Will