Consecutive "Rejections" of submissions from journals may lead researchers to mental distress. How to overcome that?
Dear all, this might sound overly simplistic, but my simple answer is “Don’t be.”
Publishing is a challenging task but should not be a source of frustration!
SEE BELOW for questions that might be helpfulf for publishing your work.
A recent comment from one of my early career colleagues sharing the disappointment of being desk-rejected by an editor was "I am heartbroken." Another very experienced and well-published colleague responded that you will get used to such letters and should not let them worry you. Even though this might not be easy to implement, I fully agree.
Particularly when starting to publish, we are likely to find out that rejections are quite common but academics tend to speak less about rejections than about their publication successes. While my linkedin feed probably shows 10 “So proud to have published my work in journal X” posts, I hardly read “And yet another rejection of my cool work at journal Y”. However, this is not unique to the academic world.
Imagine sales staff being frustrated with potential customers also wanting to look elsewhere. Quite a few of them might eventually refuse your offer even after (a series of) thorough negotiations (the review process). Others might want to neither look at your product nor engage in a negotiation with you, at all (a desk reject). Therefore, our publishing is not too different here. You have a product (your work) and you look for a buyer (here a set of target journals).
If you accept my analogy, you might find it easier to reflect on the ‘product’ (the paper) you plan to submit and revisit the ‘place’ (the journal) to publish. While I cannot offer a one-best-way approach to get into a journal, I think there are some ways to reduce (yet, not to avoid) disappointment with submissions. Here is a non-comprehensive list of questions that you could you ask yourself before submitting your work:
In addition to these questions to ask about yourself and your research, I found it extremely helpful to shift the perspective and engage as a reviewer. I found that switching from author to reviewer shows you how critical you might perceive the work of others when switching roles. Identifying weaknesses in the work of others and constructively engaging in ways to resolve them is something that can also boost the quality of your own work. Often, the review process at journals will allow you to see what other reviewers feel about a paper you have reviewed (usually when the editors communicate their decisions).
There usually are plenty of opportunities to act as a reviewer at conferences or journals and often you just need to respond to a call for reviewers or links to sign-up to reviewer pools related to your scholarly community. Additionally, you could also contact editors in your subject area directly and signal your willingness to volunteer. Again, I would probably look where my expertise fits best (regarding research area and design). Once you reviewed for a journal in your area, possibly on several occasions, you might also have a much better feel on why papers tend to make it there - and why not. This understanding can be extremely valuable for your own upcoming submission.
I hope you find my comments helpful!
All the best!
Markus Kittler
Sarker Provash Kumer, if you are referring to personal experience, I hear your anguish!
Now, first, I think it's important to ensure that manuscripts are as good as they can possibly be, in all respects - their conception through to their presentation (including polished use of language and even referencing). Then acknowledge that there might be good reasons for an article being rejected, e.g., that it has been sent to an inappropriate journal. Also, without resentment, realise that a lot of reviewers are not particularly good, so they can reject a manuscript because they don't understand it or because it threatens their own biases.
If the latter applies, it's best to take a deep breath and submit to another journal where the reviewers might be better. There's that old story about the princess who kissed a lot of frogs until one of them turned out to be a handsome prince.
In case it cheers you up, I had an article rejected by six journals 2.5 years ago, mainly because, I think, I was targeting journals that wanted multi-authored articles with large sample sizes yielding data on which high-level looking statistics had been performed. My article was conceptual, but it took me a while to realise that many journals simply want to publish empirical research. Finally, an editor recommended another journal that had a category titled "Perspectives". I submitted my article there, and it has now had more than 120,000 views on the journal's site as well as more than 120 citations.
So, do your very best, and keep going.
Every good wish.
Hello
Personally I do not like the word frustrate
The main reasons is because we have to get over and over to have a good result.
Write is like exercises you should do many, many times.
Look for another magazines, you have to have references news, etc, etc.
I studied in a foreign country very old and close mind in my opinion, and I am now trying to open to Scopus or JCR, by myself. So keeping doing as an exercise. BUT NEVER USED THAT BAD WORD: FRUSTRATED
Ingrid del Valle
Keep trying to meet the journal requirements and standards :)
Robert Trevethan
Sir,
Thank you so much for your kind motivation and sharing experience. I highly appreciate your cooperation. To mention, I tried my best, as much possible, to prepare the manuscript well. But alone, how far is achievable! Despite such dedication, there may remain some flaws which, I suppose, is kind of common.
However, the manuscript is theoretical (contains mathematical implications) and related to economics as well as fine with language, referencing, and scope. Nonetheless, it was declined. I understand and respect the decision but declines without stated reasons are painful. It's an SSCI journal. Perhaps what you mentioned holds here too (have to keep kissing frogs). It would be value-adding to researchers if journals categorically state the reasons for declining submissions.
As you are experienced and expert in research, could you please suggest some tips in general for SSCI journals.
Thank you once again, Sir.
If you work by vocation, I think you always have to follow with enthusiasm, (despite initial frustration). One can always learn from constructive criticism to reconstruct his/her work. I do. And there is also the possibility of sending the papers to other journals.
Ingrid Del Valle García Carreño
Ma'am,
Thank you so much.
As you know, writing takes a lot of dedication, time, labor, and stress. And this happens to be the normal process. I have references and other sources of open access journals from where I collected the literature. I am looking for exactly where the manuscript is weak, not stated by the journal.
Kudos! you are doing well I hope. I wish you every success.
Dear Sarker Provash Kumer, in my opinion occasional rejections are part of the normal scientific life of every researcher and should not lead to general "frustration". At the second glance, comments made by the reviewers often make sense and the rejection becomes understandable. In any case you should implement all changes and corrections suggested by the reviewers. This will definitively improve the quality of the manuscript. Then the manuscript can be submitted again to a journal that is better suited.
Dear all, this might sound overly simplistic, but my simple answer is “Don’t be.”
Publishing is a challenging task but should not be a source of frustration!
SEE BELOW for questions that might be helpfulf for publishing your work.
A recent comment from one of my early career colleagues sharing the disappointment of being desk-rejected by an editor was "I am heartbroken." Another very experienced and well-published colleague responded that you will get used to such letters and should not let them worry you. Even though this might not be easy to implement, I fully agree.
Particularly when starting to publish, we are likely to find out that rejections are quite common but academics tend to speak less about rejections than about their publication successes. While my linkedin feed probably shows 10 “So proud to have published my work in journal X” posts, I hardly read “And yet another rejection of my cool work at journal Y”. However, this is not unique to the academic world.
Imagine sales staff being frustrated with potential customers also wanting to look elsewhere. Quite a few of them might eventually refuse your offer even after (a series of) thorough negotiations (the review process). Others might want to neither look at your product nor engage in a negotiation with you, at all (a desk reject). Therefore, our publishing is not too different here. You have a product (your work) and you look for a buyer (here a set of target journals).
If you accept my analogy, you might find it easier to reflect on the ‘product’ (the paper) you plan to submit and revisit the ‘place’ (the journal) to publish. While I cannot offer a one-best-way approach to get into a journal, I think there are some ways to reduce (yet, not to avoid) disappointment with submissions. Here is a non-comprehensive list of questions that you could you ask yourself before submitting your work:
In addition to these questions to ask about yourself and your research, I found it extremely helpful to shift the perspective and engage as a reviewer. I found that switching from author to reviewer shows you how critical you might perceive the work of others when switching roles. Identifying weaknesses in the work of others and constructively engaging in ways to resolve them is something that can also boost the quality of your own work. Often, the review process at journals will allow you to see what other reviewers feel about a paper you have reviewed (usually when the editors communicate their decisions).
There usually are plenty of opportunities to act as a reviewer at conferences or journals and often you just need to respond to a call for reviewers or links to sign-up to reviewer pools related to your scholarly community. Additionally, you could also contact editors in your subject area directly and signal your willingness to volunteer. Again, I would probably look where my expertise fits best (regarding research area and design). Once you reviewed for a journal in your area, possibly on several occasions, you might also have a much better feel on why papers tend to make it there - and why not. This understanding can be extremely valuable for your own upcoming submission.
I hope you find my comments helpful!
All the best!
Markus Kittler
Markus G Kittler
Sir,
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback.
I have found your comment very "helpful" and have collected the referred preprint.
Sarker Provash Kumer, I notice that you have sent me a private message asking if I might be able to help, and I'd be happy to try to do so. I'm not sure how best to do that in a general sense, but if you were to send me a copy of your article, I could do some editing of it for you, perhaps. However, you would need to prepare to do some weeping. It is said that editors who don't make their clients weep are not doing their job properly. :-)
For that to happen, please send me your email address with another private message, and also attach your article if you're happy to do that. Please also let me know which journal you sent your article to, and which journal you might target for your next submission.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure about the best way I might be able to provide some suggestions until I see your manuscript. Could you please let me know if you can use Track Changes, also. Thanks.
Robt.
Robert Trevethan sir,
Thank you. I am glad to have you in reviewing the manuscript. I have already sent you the file and email address. Plus I am preparing to weep (haha), I won't mind it if I can publish it.
Looking forward to your reply.
Believe in yourself!! Try this mantra .....it works. Never give up because path ahead may be full of obstacles but my dear friend nothing is achieved without hard work, passion and determination. If it is taking time that means God has planned something better for you. Let the right time come.
I have received 187 rejection mails so far in my decade old research career. Yes, some times it really frustrates, annoys and hounds the memories. Here are some tips which I share from my personal experience to stay motivated to do research.
(1) First and foremost, rejections are part and parcel of research career. No matter you become the renowned scientist, you will still receive rejection mails.
(2) Pay attention to the reviewer comments and editor remarks. If you can work it out, it would improve the manuscript and increase the chances of acceptance.
(3) Is your research topic currently a "hot cake"? If not it would be difficult to publish in top journals and the history of rejections would continue.
(4) No matter how bad a manuscript is, there exists a journal to accept your work. Find out that journal and improve your publication record towards top journals.
(5) Go through the recent issues of the journal in which you want to submit your manuscript. Has the journal published anything related to your research area recently? What does the journal focus currently or in the last couple of years?Nowadays, it is required to orient the research objectives towards the target journal.
(6) Do not follow up with an editor to reconsider your manuscript for publication in the same journal and do not submit again to the same journal after revising. It only increases the frustration further.
(7) Keep on trying until the manuscript is published in a journal in-spite of continuous rejections. Some editor or reviewer will certainly give positive assessment. It is said that Edison made more than 2000 attempts to finalize the material for bulb filament. Remain unflinching!
(8) Pay attention to your reference section. If the citations are too old, editors may not pass your manuscript to review.
(9) Writing a research article is an art. Every researcher may not master it. There are institutes available to tune your manuscript technically and language-wise.
(10) Do not pin your hope and destiny on the first article from the research project which is constantly rejected. Complete your project and make 3-4 articles and submit to various journals simultaneously.
(11) Do a proof reading and get opinion of the manuscript from an expert professor in your field of research before submitting to the next journal.
(12) Cultivate the character of patience and boost the mental stamina to digest the next rejection.
Cheer up!
Dear Isaac Dinaharan
Thank you so much for the motivation and precise instructions.
Your instructions are quite value-adding. Reference is recent (up to last five years), language is standard so far. The problems may lie in referencing. It could be better to use endnote, Zotero, or other software.
Wow, there’s already an enormous amount of good suggestions and tips been listed in the comments from the colleagues above!!!
If I may add a very practical one, which you have to deal with as everybody wants to get their papers published), check out our short article “My paper got rejected! What now?”. It includes also a free decision tree to show you the options you’ve got after rejection: https://bit.ly/2Yt4ncn
All the best,
Gunther
Perhaps it's not my place to do so, but I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread so far. The responses and offers of help have been wise, supportive, heartfelt, and helpful. To me, that kind of thing is very much what ResearchGate is all about.
Apart from that, Provash has indeed been in touch with me (see above) and I think I am not breaking confidences in saying that there is much about his writing that I regard as being at a very high level - but I am trying to help him with some aspects. That's made easier because he is courteous, keen to improve, and has a nice sense of humour. I'll keep helping him.
Paper rejection can be subjective. Even Paul C. Paris got his first paper on fracture mechanics rejected by top journals.
Dont be worried. Please read this research. It will help you regarding your question.
https://ijohmn.com/index.php/ijohmn/article/view/139/531
Take every rejection to be another chance to be better. Paper publishing is a process, the more you write, the better you become.
Understanding the reason/s for your paper being rejected will help you improve your manuscript and help you overcome the problem. For instance, it may be the wrong selection of journals. There are websites that can help select the right journal, like https://thinkchecksubmit.org/
Therefore, identifying the reasons is the first step in overcoming rejection, in my opinion.
Wow - I could never write that quick AND with such good turnout. Very good!
No need to be frustrated; you should take it so easy and do not give up. Try to send your rejected paper to another (may be equivalent) journal. You will be surprised that sometimes the same paper (with no alteration what so ever) will be accepted in a journal just as reputable . It happened with me once; I sent a paper to a highly ranked journal. After a few weeks, the referee (who was an editorial board member) wrote to me with a (justified !) rejection. I directly took the same paper and sent it to another (equivalent in my opinion) journal which accepted it straightaway without any correction!. In that stage, I thought the case was closed for me but in fact it was not. A few weeks latter (and to my big surprise), I received an acceptance letter from the former journal which has rejected it earlier (the letter was written by the same editor). Then I wrote to him and reminded him with his early rejection letter and informed him that the paper now is accepted for publication and will appear soon. He wrote to me apologizing and expressing his big surprise. The case then should have been closed forever, but in fact it was not. A few months latter I received the paper’s galley proof from the former (the rejector) journal! while the paper is about to appear somewhere else. I thought then that the only way to stop 🛑 publishing that paper in the former journal is to write to the editor-in-chief ! and that was exactly what I did.
I apologize for the detailed strange story but I thought it will dissolve some of your frustration and enhance hope for you.
Dear Sarker Provash Kumer, I fully agree with Ahmed Ali Khammash in that resubmission of a rejected paper to another, equivalent journal can have a completely different outcome. Of course you should always take into account the comments of the original reviewers and try to revise and improve the manuscript as much as possible. Then you just have to pray that the new journal does not send out the revised manuscript to the same reviewers...
Frank T. Edelmann , Ahmed Ali Khammash , Michael Patriksson , Juliana Linnette D'Sa, Olumoyewa Dotun Atoyebi , Muhammad Javed , Joseph Ahn , Gunther Tress
Thank you all for your cordial and valuable comments. I will keep following those.
Dear Sarker,
Kudos to all who have commented on this question.
You have asked a good question. First, I want you to know that nothing good comes so easily. So, in this field, perseverance is key. You need to keep believing that you can do it, and keep trying.
It may surprise you to know that there is hardly a top researcher whose paper has never been rejected. Just that people hardly talk about their papers that were rejected, all you hear are the success stories.
From personal experience, one of my papers was rejected by a journal (with no impact factor) sometimes ago, and all I did was to send the same paper (with no further modification) to a journal having a high impact factor. In short, this paper was accepted by the new journal. So, don't let rejection weight you down, it is part of the experience that we acquire in this field!
All the best man!
Dera Paul Awoyera, very good points! I assume that the are NO top researchers who never experienced the rejection of a paper. Your experience also shows that i pays off to submit manuscripts to journals with an impact factor.
Dear,
It is the most important part of everyone's life (not a Ph.D only). So, I would suggest to GRAB A MUG OF BEER! and PLAN YOUR TOMORROW'S TARGET.
I hope that it might have worked for lot of my colleagues.
Just don't stop trying.
Be positive, imagine how can You feel when you post this paper.
How your heart would beat faster, how you could smile, which friends you would share a beer with ....
Keep a smile and try again.
Dear Kumer,
I understand you. Don't stop you attemps and hope you will be lucky finally.
One time nearly the same occurs with our group - a lot of rejections.
But we didn't stop our work and writing papers.
Unfortunately sometimes such a situation happens. And, possibly, due to some lobby among Reviewers and Editors who are first of all trying to achieve their own goals.
As for me, beeing a reviewer, I never was rejected papers completely without giving possibillity for the Authors to re-arrange it and to fix some problems. In my humble opinion it is better than to reject without finding any good sides in submitted manuscript.
Hope everything bad will go away and you will achieve what you challenging.
Regards,
Dmitry
Dear, Dmitry A. Zatsepin , thank you so much for the inspiration. But rejection without stated reasons hurts more. Hope I will fix it soon.
Dear Elena Simeonova Nikolova , Aayush Gupta Frank T. Edelmann , Paul Awoyera , Aneeba Rashid
, Ali A. Al-Homaidan ,Thank you all. It so happens in the process of publication, I understand. However, It could be better, (authors could easily address the shortcomings) if the editors kindly state the specific reasons for the declines. In the cases of desk rejection, that happens rarely.
For fun, I would share.
My last publication are not related to my name :) because of a big mess whit my change family names.
It is funny because in this paper I am not just one of the authors, I am the lead author.
I hope that mess will finish soon and I don't have such problems, but now I need to attach this paper to my profile.
:)
Life is fun :)
Keep smile
Dear Kumer,
Exactly so - and when manuscript is not faced with valuable reasons for rejecting, usually this menas that it is rather lobby - this means that "conflict of interests" hidden decline reason was applied.
BTW, in my opinion this option is the most "dirty" because a Reviewer or Editor can't find valuable reasons or don't want to go deep inside a submitted paper.
Our group sa well faced several times with ridiculous reasons or absent of reasons at all - simply because a lot of papers had been already submitted before your, no free editors or and reviewers, bla-bla-bla......
In some cases our paper was changing 10 or 11 journals before it was taken for consideration by reviewers and editors.
So.... So it is life.
PS Dont worry, Reviewers and Editors are not permanent - they are replaceable persons and ... and another team may be much loyal to Authors. I hope so.
Regards,
Dmitry
Dmitry A. Zatsepin ,
Sir, that's what I mentioned. I wonder if there is a universal, standard set of policies for review in the industry. Each journal has its own rules and policies. That's OK as far as they are fair and equitable. I hope, the problems will be fixed someday soon.
Have my cordial thanks.
Regards,
Provash.
Dear Sarker Provash Kumer and Dmitry A. Zatsepin, I'm convinced that this problem will never be solved in the sense that every reviewer and Editor will be fair and objective. There will always be (hopefully only a few) cases, where a reviewer is unfair or simply doesn't understand your work. This is just all too human.
Dear Frank T. Edelmann and Dmitry A. Zatsepin ,
Sir, I understand and agree with your statement. Generally, reviewers and editors, I believe, always try to do their best. It is OK to decline any submissions for misfit of the journal scope, poor contribution and/or quality, or low significance. It happens. However, the author(s) will always be grateful for any constructive feedback from editors in case of desk rejection. However, as an author, I expect it from you, as you are reviewers (haha).
I thank both of YOU for your constructive discussion.
Regards.
Elena Simeonova Nikolova
That's so unexpected. I hope it will be fixed soon.
And Thank You.
Dear Sarker Provash Kumer it is your right to expect fairness and professionalism from us as reviewers. 👍
Sarker Provash Kumer :)
as I told you life is a big fun :)
Just try to see positives.
I also hope to fix all this mess around me, but ... some times even to me is not so easy to follow all my shapes :)
Bring in another scientist to help out - either a more senior one, or from a near-by lab, with similar interests. You can definitely gain a lot by getting advise from other scholars. Perhaps you can find a co-author as well. It's quite often a good advise to have conversations with researchers from other labs, too, as you get away from your usual hang-ups and can be more free in your thoughts.
In some cases - possibly not yours, we hope - the reasons to be rejected are soooo obvious (no news value, no real contribution, masses of errors in the math, ...) that the handling editor may not provide every dumb thing in the manuscript. It can be easy as that, and it is meant that the author shall understand that.
Of course, sometimes there is an element of discrimination (for various reasons) or mistake in evaluation, but, anyway, You have to try once more and once more (to another journal), and only then - to reduce the level of the journal to which You intend to be published. Please, notice, sometimes in the such "lower" and not so wanted previously journal You can find other or publish Yours a better article of content or form.
A few very clear cases when rejection clearly are due are when:
1. Technical details are glossed over, such as proofs of theorems and/or numerical experiments; every discussion should be done in detail.
2. There is either very little motivation for the research, or it is shallow, or it is quite similar to something already published (i.e., it is derivative).
3. The text is badly written, such that it can not be understood.
4. The text is not motivated well.
5. The survey part is incomplete.
These are fast growing problems, and I attribute this trend to the fact that science publishing has grown much to fast for its own good - far too many papers are incomplete, wrong, or incomprehensible!
I would say that junior scientists (at least) should not be allowed to submit a manuscript before it has been screened carefully at the institute, by someone reading it carefully, and with a follow-up internal seminar, where all bugs are straightened out!
If a system is implemented wherein the research group regularly meet to discuss excellence in science, with very good examples presented in your field of science, then you can begin to steer the ship better, towards excellent papers.
Sarker Provash Kumer please see this interesting link entitled 'Eight reasons I rejected your article' in which 8 scientific reasons for rejecting a paper are outlined. Every Editor (perhaps you know one in person) will tell you that there ARE scrap manuscripts that must be rejected. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article
Very good suggestions...I also agree that a researcher has to develop patience in accepting the long list of rejections...I also received lots of rejection in my research career...I am fully satisfied with some of the reviewers who have enlightened me about the mistakes I have committed while developing the paper. However, in a recent case one of my paper was rejected by sending the reviewer comments which I found totally unsatisfied. After reading the comments I came to the conclusion that the reviewer do not possess proper knowledge about the methodology applied in the study. I am totally dejected with the decision as the journal kept my article for more than 6 months to reach the first decision and that too rejection. My question here is if at all the the article do not meet the requirements of the journal then it could have been better to reject the article instantaneously. The article which was based on the data of COVID-19 became outdated and now I am unable to submit it to other journals. Anyways, I am on my way and continuing research works. So, I suggest Sarker Provash Kumer not to get frustrated, have patience and look out for some other journals for publication.
Cheer up and Be happy...Life is to go on....
Once my supervisor said to me ' if you have done some work (i.e. black n white on a paper) from your conscience and knowledge, it will definitely be published somewhere.'
It worked for me and my colleagues.... I wish that it should work for whole human society.
All the best!
Rejection or acceptance are two cardinal options in life while frustration is also an emotional option you can choose to accept or reject. Work on your emotional intelligence, and you can access divine help.
Sarker Provash Kumer there are some journals that ask for article processing charges and publish research articles quickly. I don't know why they do this but getting publications in such journals is not self satisfactory as they do not undergo review process even no author proof readings. It is surprising that such journals are also listed in the Scopus...Anyways if you want to know about such journals contact me in my private email id [email protected]
Gibji Nimasow not every journal which charges a publication fee is a predatory journal as you described. In our field of research (chemistry) there are a few good Open Access journals which ask for publication charges but offer a rigorous peer-reviewing process and very good service. A typical example is the journal Acta Crystallographica Section E (CRYSTALLOGRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS) in which chemists can publish crystal structures of new chemical compounds. Their Open Access fee is $ 400.
https://journals.iucr.org/e/services/openaccess.html
To publish in science you don't have to be a "sprinter" but a "marathon runner".
You must be patient and work hard.
Accept rejection as a part of the process to be successful. Figure out why the papers are getting rejected. Work on overcoming the limitations.
Frank T. Edelmann Yes Sir, you are correct every journal which charges publication fee are not predatory journal. Sir, I said some journals not all the journals. I figured out some journals that publish articles without peer review by charging article processing fees. Most of the scientific open access journals go for rigorous peer review process but there are some predatory journals specifically interdisciplinary journals which do not bother for peer review and just depends on the article processing charges. Even I find some journals asking non-refundable editors fee while submitting the manuscript for publication. Sometimes when a researcher is in need of urgent publication they became prey to such journals. By saying all this I am not discouraging the young scholars but it is fact that I have came across in the recent past. I do believe that acceptance and rejection of articles are part and parcel of research process. I learned many good things from the reviewer comments in the past which enhanced my research qualities a lot. Anyways, thanks a lot Frank T. Edelmann Sir for sharing the information. I look forward for more guidance from your end in the coming days.
Regards,
Gibji Nimasow yes, I fully agree with you. Every researcher should be very careful not to step into the traps of such predatory journals.
Dear all,
Whatever you told is absolutely right but the frustration and disappointment will remain to continue, when fails to publish a paper.
Rudrarapu Aravind every researchers makes such frustrating experiences during an academic career. One must learn to make the best out of such a situation.
Well, there are plenty of guide books and articles on how to get the message across, and how to write for specific audiences. It should not be impossible to publish a good paper, provided that you know your field very well, and have a good way of writing scientific English. At my universities we have also always had a service to those who are juniors, or have a problem with grammar - they tend to do it without cost, too.
Michael Patriksson yes, a "good way of writing scientific English" is an important point. Many questions right here on RG formulated in lousy English make clear that this is not to be taken for granted.
When a researcher has a problem with scientific English and grammar, it is always advisable to ask a native speaker to polish the style of the manuscript.
Rejection is not rejection of work!!!
It is the quality which is rejected, and underlines for the improvement.
There is always room for improvement. In research, Accept criticism and learn from them.
Failures are pillers of success..... So this should be an inspirational aspect not frustrating...it's never too late to rewrite, reanalyse....and improve your work.
Frustration on a rejected paper must not be allowed to hinder the acceptance of the next paper, handle that frustration with care. Don't be shut down.
Dear Sarker Provash Kumer "Consecutive "Rejections" of submissions from journals may lead researchers to mental distress." There is no doubt that "consecutive rejections" of manuscript have a large frustration potential, especially for younger scientists. First of all, every researcher in the world has experienced occasional rejections. They are part of the normal scientific life, and one must learn how to deal with them. However, when you mention "consecutive rejections" you should also ask yourself if there is a general problem with your manuscripts. A likely reason could be for example that you did not choose the right journals. It is of great importance that the scope of the journal exactly matches with the topic of your work. Moreover, if your work is rather specialized you should send it to a specialized journal. High-ranked journals often address a broad readership, so that highly specialized work is more likely to be rejected.
Dear Sarker Provash Kumer
I agree with Prof Frank T. Edelmann (They are part of the normal scientific life). Try to find a partner to help you in improving your manuscript as Prof. Michael Patriksson said, instead of wasting your time to submit it again and again, and sure you will get the same thing. If you ask a trusted expert, he/she will directly inform you about your mispoints and how to improve. The key point is how to introduce your real work.
First analyse the reason why your paper was rejected. Read carefully the comments of the referees. You certainly will learn the causes of the repeated failure to publish your results and then go back to the bench design and do new experiments , repeating them…until you get water tight results that are answering the question(s).
First analyse the reason for why your paper rejected.In any paper includes experimentation ,readings,analysis software .
identify the reason of rejection, and improvise that area before next submission to reduce chances of rejection.
An occasional rejection of a research paper does not mean the end of the world. Every researcher makes this frustrating experience from time to time. We all must learn how to cope with this situation and how to make the best of it. In most cases it is too easy to blame the reviewers and suspect that they don't understand the work. At least in our discipline (chemistry) reviewers of renowned journal are usually proven experts who can judge the quality of a manuscripts and find errors and drawbacks.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals