@ Amel Amrani

Paper rejection is a part of publication, and it happens with all researchers. Frankly speaking I never felt disappointed. After rejection, I usually revise the manuscript in light of rejection ground, and submit it to other suitable journal for publication.

@ Amel Amrani

Paper rejection is a part of publication, and it happens with all researchers. Frankly speaking I never felt disappointed. After rejection, I usually revise the manuscript in light of rejection ground, and submit it to other suitable journal for publication.

It hurts when a good paper is rejected. But let us not get disheartened when you know paper contains novel information. I think paper should be revised for submission to another or the same journal for its publication.

I feel upset!

Sad but hopeful. Revise/or upgrade in line with grounds for rejection and submit to another journal.

It is not sad, but interesting to be rejected. To me, it is a new way to learn to meet standards or the scope of a particular journal.

The only painful aspect is when your manuscript is kept in review for almost a year or two before a rejection decision is received. Editors and Reviewers ought to do well to provide whatever the decision is early enough.

Some times it is rejected after two or more times review- in the name of not much improvement made. It is really unfortunate. If the article is not suitable or bear no science- reject it initially so that authors can save energy for re-submission to other journals

@Amel Amrani I feel unhappy but not discouraged. Except for papers that are not suitable for a particular journal's scope and abysmally poor, I think journal editors should try to be patient with authors. First of all, technical reasons on why the paper is not good enough should always be given so as to enable the author improve on the quality of the paper.

They should at least give the author the opportunity to revise their paper once before rejection. There are many instances where papers rejected by a particular journal are accepted by other journals after revisions have been made.

To add to what Dr. Razak M Gyasi said, though being rejected after a year under review is painful. I believe that if after a year the paper is rejected with comments from the reviewers that is fine. The comments provided may useful to improve the paper for subsequent submission in other journal.

Dear researchers, Does any work reject from the editor's feel? And without any convincing reason...

In reality, this kind of response is a disappointment but when it thus comes as earlier as possible with some few comments either positive or negative regarding the manuscript,; then whole rejection in my opinion is good step to improve the work and submit to alternative journal.

Dear Amel Amrami,

A very interesting question. I remember that there was a study done by Calcagno and colleagues in 2012, which focused on the flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals, which revealed that "resubmissions from other journals received more citations than first-intent submissions." ... Maybe more studies have been conducted in this area which might confirm or contradict their findings?

Best,

Interesting findings @ Mijntje D C ten Brummelaar.

This case happens for all researchers in all journals in order to make the paper fits whith journal style. So this thing is not bad.

The rejection of a paper is simply a turn-around process for a researcher to further polish his/her level of scientific reasoning and to carefully redirect his/her innovative idea to the appropriate scientific journal.

When we submit our manuscript for publication we aspect it paper will published and useful for our nation. But when it not happened.... We feel upset for short time.... But it is give us opportunity to do again.... As new work

It does not evoke the right feeling but if you learn to pick up the pieces and continue to work hard at it, the editor who rejected same work might cite it in the future.

I have heard about a researcher whose article was rejected from a good conference. After that he works on the point that were listed as the reasons for rejection. After that he submitted that in a good conference and that time he achieved "Best Paper Award".

Rejection of articles in any journal or conference is a common thing that happens with researchers. Please don't be disappointed. May be they have pointed some reasons for rejection. Do work on those point and then it will be a article with better quality.

Dear Sohel Rana,

Thanks for your insight but I think you missed the point of contention. A paper could be rejected and that is fine but it becomes irritating when an author has to wait for say one whole year or even longer before the rejection decision is communicated by a journal's editor. Rejection itself does not call for any alarm but the circumstances surrounding it matter.

Rejections are part of the business but they must be done with some sense of ethics. Authors would atleast want to have a feedback to know whether their paper will pass the first litmus test of making it to a review. They also anticipate that the review would be fair and done in good time. If a rejection occurs after first review, the author(s) would seize the opportunity to revise the paper based on the constructive aspects of the review and send it elsewhere. In some instances, when it has failed to pass the test for publication after the revision or a second review, the authors would have had the opportunity to better their research in good time. Unfortunatley some editors and publishing houses have turned themselves into tin gods of rejection and these are not done timeously; what a shame ! I remember some few years ago, we sent a paper out for review. It passed the preliminary test for review. We responded to review responses, finally it was rejeced by the journal almost a year with a shameful escuse; your research does not fit into the scope of our journal. What were they doing in the first instance.

At another time we sent our paper to a journal, it took us almost six to seven months until we received a letter from the editor who should no better. She hinted, your paper has been rejected. Rejected based on what ? "we could not find a reviewer for yor paper". What a shame ! We should not also forget that some of the editors and journals are wolves, especially when you are plying a new area they do not understand, they might want to eat you up before you get there. Also, some of the reviewers for the journals might not care a hoot or do not understand a jot of what you are aiming at but they give wayward advice and suggestions to editors who have no interest in what they have been appointed to do.

Remember, when you have done a good work and it is rejected by a journal because you are not in their league of accomplished authors, you should not care a jot about it. Make sure they read this work in the future while an albatross hangs around their neck. Continue doing research and make sure no editor or review construe and construct you into a mould outside of your innate-given flare.

I am not afraid of rejections, I used to be, but now I am numbed. We cannot stop publishing because of rejection. When I am rejected by an editor, I rework it and find another journal until my contribution is read by those who really need it.

NICE WORDS SAM. AS FOR THE REJECTION BASED ON UNAVAILABILITY OF REVIEWERS AFTER WAITING FOR ABOUT 6 MONTHS TO A YEAR IS ABSOLUTELY UNFORTUNATE. IT HAPPENED TO ME ONCE AND I FELT SO DISAPPOINTED. THE SYTEM SHOULD BE REGULATED SOMEHOW I THINK.

Dr. Razak M Gyasi , thank you for remembering one important thing. It will be a matter of disappointment, irritating if anyone get reply after waiting somewhat like one year, from any journal's editor that the article does not go with the scope of the journal. It is their fault and their irresponsible, shameful act, because they did initial first review in which the paper passed. And after correction, edit and a lot of works, if they say that it is out of scope then, someone will be obviously disappointed, and it is total loss of his time. Another thing is, it is heard that after submitting an article in a journal, sometime the researcher(s) get reply after 7-8 months that they can't manage any reviewer. It is also irritating, and they are totally careless about the time of the researchers.

Personally I never felt desapointed if the editor provide a constructive report which will help me to improve the manuscript. In can the paper is rejected, and there is no constructive comments accompanying the rejection, I feel so stressed.

In my opinion, the excuse of 'we feel' is not professional. Sound reasons must be given out of respect to the researchers. That is the least they could have done. It is a real shame.

Just started my process and have had my first share of rejection. It is part of life! As my Mentor Dr. David Asamoah will say, Alaska lets look at their review correct what we see wrong and push it to another journal.

Following