One of my journal papers was under review in a reputed journal for over 2 years. Initially, there were major revisions, we submitted 4 revisions to the journal incorporating reviewers comments and justifying contribution of our paper.
In our last revision, it was minor revision. We did changes in 10 sentences (Question based headlines to statement based headlined) and did through proofreading.
After submission of the very minor revision (changes only in 10 sentence) and proofreading, I have got this mail from the new Editor-in-Chief after 10 month that our paper got rejected based on editorial objective and type of paper (as it was a review paper).
After 2 years, they found that our paper was not matching their editorial guidelines, hence, hence they cannot publish paper in the journal in its current state.
I do not know really how to handle this situation. I am not just questioning their judgement, but after 2 years they showed that it did not quality their editorial objective and journal scope (as it was review paper). I lost almost 2 years time to know their views after several revisions.
My questions to my research colleagues: Have you faced this situation in your research life? What did you do in such situation?
Requesting your views and suggestion.
Thanks
Yes I recently faced such a situation almost during finalization of the MS. Take it easy and resubmit elsewhere.
No harm but your two years valueable time is gone. Feeling sorry for that.
Its a lapse on the part of the editors. If they do not publish review papers they should not have consider the MS for review.
I have had such experience with a number reputed journals several times.
I will just narrate the worst experience.
I submitted a taxonomic revision of a genus carried out by me under the "Flora of India Project" to a reputed journal. There were two reviewers. While the first reviewer recommended the publication of my manuscript, the second reviewer asked me to provide field photographs of all the concerned species though I had submitted line drawings of at least half of the species treated by me. Consequently I expressed my inability to fulfill the desire of the said reviewer and requested the Editor of the journal to publish my paper without the field photographs as it will take me a lifetime for a single revision if I go to field and take photographs of all the species treated by me. However, the Editor, a renowned Scientist in the field, expressed his inability to publish my paper in their journal.
I never submitted any paper to that journal again but they are now regularly sending me manuscripts submitted to them for review!
I had resubmitted the said paper to another journal after the above rejection and the same was then published within six months with minor modifications!
Dear Gobinda Roy never get disheartened. Just withdraw your manuscript after a reasonable wait and resubmit the same to some other journal.
Hi, Gobinda,
I am sorry to hear of your situation. It can be quite frustrating to respond sincerely to reviewers' notes without finally obtaining an acceptance. There is, of course, virtually no recourse once an editor has made a final decision.
I strongly recommend that you give yourself a few days to process the rejection, then to quickly resubmit your manuscript elsewhere for consideration. The worst personal example I can share is a controversial manuscript of mine that received 8 rejections before being accepted. One of my mentors often said, "there is a place for every manuscript." Find it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism