What is your reaction after a research work with good contribution get rejected by editor/reviewers?
Have you ever get a rejection of your manuscript?
What is the best way to proceed after a Manuscript get rejected?
We must stay positive, read the reviewer's comment carefully,, try to improve the article and submit it again to the same or another appropriate journal.
The attached link (Eight reasons I rejected your article, Peter Thrower, PhD, Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the international journal of the American Carbon ) presents various reasons for rejection from an Editor's point of view.
When a manuscript is submitted to a high-quality scholarly journal, it goes through intense scrutiny — even before it's seen by the editor-in-chief and selected for peer review. At Elsevier, between 30 percent to 50 percent of articles don't even make it to the peer review process.
1. It fails the technical screening.
2. It does not fall within the Aims and Scope.
3. It's incomplete.
4. The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seen to be defective.
5. The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper.
6. It's is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.
7. It's incomprehensible.
8. It's boring.
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article
If my paper is rejected by a high quality journal, I try to read their reviews carefully and follow their suggestions or criticisms in order to improve the quality of my paper and then send it to another high quality journal.
When I was young, I had a few experiences of getting my manuscript rejected by prestigious journals. In those occasions, I tried to improve my manuscript by taking into account of the opinions of referees and submitted the revised manuscript to another good journal, finally getting it published.
You can try to send abstract to the conference, which publishes of the proceedings in the impact journal.
We must stay positive, read the reviewer's comment carefully,, try to improve the article and submit it again to the same or another appropriate journal.
The attached link (Eight reasons I rejected your article, Peter Thrower, PhD, Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the international journal of the American Carbon ) presents various reasons for rejection from an Editor's point of view.
When a manuscript is submitted to a high-quality scholarly journal, it goes through intense scrutiny — even before it's seen by the editor-in-chief and selected for peer review. At Elsevier, between 30 percent to 50 percent of articles don't even make it to the peer review process.
1. It fails the technical screening.
2. It does not fall within the Aims and Scope.
3. It's incomplete.
4. The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seen to be defective.
5. The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper.
6. It's is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.
7. It's incomprehensible.
8. It's boring.
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article
I do exactly the same what Masoumeh Bahman and Tatsuo Tabata have mentioned. Try to improve the manuscript by taking into account of the opinions of reviewers and submit the revised manuscript to the same journal or to a good journal.
We also have similar threads, some of them well discussed and some of them didn't get much attention.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/When_does_a_rejection_of_a_scientific_paper_become_beneficial_to_the_author_Have_you_experienced_a_rejection_that_worked_out_for_your_good
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_you_will_go_if_you_got_rejection_for_your_paper
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_should_young_researchers_react_to_rejection_of_their_articles_submitted_to_reputable_journals
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_you_will_go_if_you_got_rejection_for_your_paper
Cheers
Lijo
Thanks for the invitation.
I agree with all the aforementioned views.
In case of a rejection, I will try to understand what the reviewer/s say and become reviewer of myself.
I will continue to submit.
thanks dear First u should not be worried the rejection can have many reasons: not suitable scope of journal or not finding appropraite referees, similarity itndex, many such things but recently here is ditscrimination too
Nothing, just crying, feel depression, wish to leave all the career, leave search for awhile, then hope will return with time.
One more thing, we must have faith that we have done good job. The aim of publishing is not to get the credibility, rather it is an oath that we make to ourselves that audiences get the direction for future from the research we've conducted. Thus, once we have decided that the work is conclusive and worth sending for publication, one must have positive mindset that the reviewer panel is correcting it for the benefit of the work. Giving the directions of modifications (might include rejection as well) in the research work is really a difficult task, and experienced persons are taking that responsibility. Comprehensive presentation of good research work may attract many researchers and eventually leave positive impression on the future of research.
If some suggestions were given, I tried to rewrite and submitted in any other journal
A rejection should be accompanied with the reasons for rejection (and sometimes with suggestions on how to improve the manuscript). When that happens, the best way forward is to study the Editors comments, improve/rewrite the manuscript, then, resubmit to the same journal or another journal of good reputation.
@Cenap
The searcher asked on our reaction after rejection paper. I told him my reaction. The second part of the question : "Planning", I found many searchers responded him :)
Take a deep breath and sleep over it till the next day.....go through it and see if fits well into the journal scope and why it was rejected. It may be another chance to improve it and resend it to same journal or another higher one
I am always Happy when my paper is rejected by a reputable journal and they reasons for rejection but it is quite unfortunate it is not all of them that attach the reviewers comments to it
Dear @Mahamad, let me bring some good answers via fine threads where I have taken part into discussion.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_far_are_scientists_willing_to_go_to_publish_their_rejected_articles_or_scientific_reviews
https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_a_manuscript_gets_rejected_by_a_specific_journal_can_be_resubmitted_to_the_same_journal_after_modification
https://www.researchgate.net/post/When_does_a_rejection_of_a_scientific_paper_become_beneficial_to_the_author_Have_you_experienced_a_rejection_that_worked_out_for_your_good?_sg=cniP6Xu-tMkmWwq1S96O_eusUaX6M-6FkRHmeTgU5SVRPMRQZnhXQnc37x_1l39G.UII6UkjsDuI-CuqBVnqQOSKzfJ_FBObGDQj1U2-bAX7OriAVRCAu8KI9W0JOzIme.Lwss9ZizZa03pvdtf5xiyYtxVCr5pL3OX4MCDTPDGG3x6FeLTp5RmsHLf43Cy5g_&_tpcectx=search
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_are_scientifically_acceptable_articles_rejected_by_top_journals
I must present an odd case where the author of a Math Ph.D dissertation refused to get his own result published because he feared that the bulk of his Ph.D research work based on his professor/adviser's theorem is not air-tight 'correct' by his own conviction. He paid his prize for not landing any prospective teaching position due to this disagreement and lack of endorsement from his more academically renowned professor. Yet he persevered in the end, making ground breaking mathematical creative work on his own after many years taking menial jobs working as an account but continued his own research and mostly thought experiments. Details, see the post in Link below....
http://advogato.org/article/1075.html
I get really hyper for the first time when I see the rejection especially when a clear reason is not mentioned. However, if reviewers' comments are attached, I stay positive and welcome them as I understand that the research we are doing is for the benefit of the society and therefore it should be refined and corrected before getting published.
In my opinion, we should start reviewing our own paper for possible improvements after submitting it. This way, we will be able to identify our mistakes and will be ready to submit the corrected version when the paper gets rejected as we'll be able to cover most of the issues that reviewers mention in their comments.
Thank You
1. If receive an e-mail notification saying "unfortunately,.....cannot be accepted to publish on this journal"....... Like most of people, I would feel down. But, later I will change/correct/add more answers to the suggestions of the reviewers, and re-summit it. However, the silver lining of it is that you can learn a lot of things from the rejection, especially the reviewers' comments. You will become a better manuscript writer or experimental designer later on. This is the good part. As the old saying goes: No pain, no gain.
2. Some countries where SCI papers are required for graduate students to obtain their diplomas. Withoust diplomas, no official jobs can be offered for them. When they get rejections for their papers, I think they will be definitely as worried and panic as those ants on a hot pot.
Common reasons for rejecting a research paper by reviewers, as shown through link!
http://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/269831/reasons_papers_rejected-_24.08.pdf
How you react after your manuscript get rejected?
I felt sad & discouraged initially when I first submitted my paper (seemed a lot of hard work & time spent were not being appreciated). But now I will do the following:
When we received the rejection email, we need to remind ourselves - that's not the end of the world, we need to persevere - as professor shared before, "don't give up, slowly but surely every manuscript will find the right publisher".
I will go through the comments carefully and address each and every one of them if they are sensible. In some cases, I have sent my rebuttal also. This kind of an exchange between a reviewer and the author is very healthy. There is no surprise, if we come across some sadistic reviewers who would always reject the paper for some rhyme or reason.
Any review with pragmatic comments, however critical they may be should be welcomed.
A large number of papers are rejected by the referees for several reasons. In most cases it is the scientific in-accuracy of the paper(s). However, in many other cases some confusion, language or similar reasons become the basis of rejection and in all such cases referee's comments serve as a guiding point to improve the quality of paper. These papers get finally published either in the same journal or some other journals. My reaction in all such cases is to take the rejection in a +ve sense because this gives a chance to improve in relation to various aspect including the understanding of the subject.
The problem becomes serious when a paper questions the accuracy of a popular belief which forms the basis of all papers published on a given topic or in the related field. Even if the author of such a paper has listed sound reasons which reveal the error of the belief beyond every doubt, the paper is rejected from all journals without any sound academic basis. Even if the author rightly answers all points of the referee and explains his reasons clearly in different words and prays for second review, he gets no support from the second reviewer and the editor. The reason is simple, the author stands all alone against hundreds or thousands who have been working for years on a given belief and his paper is identified as a centre of conflict with the interests of thousands. J E Hirsh (Physics Department, San Diago University USA, Physica Scripta, Vol. 80 (2009), 035702 (11pp) ) has listed several points on how thousands of researchers react to such a paper for non-academic reasons. However, there is no idea which tells how an author of such a paper should react when his paper is rejected from almost every journal in spite of its accuracy and inaccuracy of long lasting belief. I would appreciate helpful comments for such a situation.
This is clear evidence that even in scientists there is tendency of non-scientific attitude. I several time came across such things in my research carrier so either things were accepted several years later and also affected scientific work and finally the research carrier as well.
If at First You Don't Succeed, Cool Off, Revise, and Submit Again
It is hoped that you carefully considered the appropriateness of the journal before you submitted your manuscript.
But if your article was rejected because the editors or referees judged it unsuitable or not novel enough for their journal, you may want to submit it intact without revision to a more suitable journal. Too often, "young scientists argue for a high-profile journal, perhaps even higher than a group leader thinks is likely to succeed," says Peter Lawrence, Bischoff's supervisor in the Laboratory of Molecular Biology at Cambridge. The result: lost time and even publishing priority, if a competing group places similar work at a more suitable journal first.
http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2008/08/if-first-you-dont-succeed-cool-revise-and-submit-again
Be humble and think in other more appropriate journal, for example, of your own country or to a place where your area of research is appreciated.
what ever happens ,, happens for the good, my manuscript despite being good, was rejected by the journal, which have very low impact factor, i keep improving until the manuscript got published in Springer, ;)
so never lose hope, after all these are the negative comments, which leads to positive changes
Alessandro Formisano (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessandro_Formisano) says:
Hi! I was rejected in the past, sometimes due to mismatch with the journal topics (and then I simply changed journal), sometimes due to actual lack of rigour in my research. In any case, it makes almost never sense to start arguing with referees: just get the best from their comments, and improve your paper and submit again: NEVER LOOSE CONFIDENCE in your work!
The keyword is "Don't be discouraged" . Rejection is normal It is reported that Rejection rates is as high as 60℅ in top tier journals. The following steps may help:
Hardwork and preserverance always pays off. Each article can find a place in suitable journals (checking the scope of journal is the necessary first step) with serious committment. It may take some time though!
I try to re-read my manuscript from a critical perspective and improve its quality. Then I send it to other journal.
Some times I feel I am really doing wrong but it is just an illusion. I feel strongly that I have made some mistakes in article that is why publisheer denied to accept my article and then I scurtinize my article again and never found mistakes in Mathematical sense but there are some typos only.
No body exactly know what a journal/publisher want from us.
I am not going to end up with negation in sense of Mathematics.
Yes that's right. We should incorporate the suggestions and comments given by the referee and then submit to another journal. But the problem is sometimes the journals reject papers but don't give any comments. Either they return the manuscript after saying backlog or give the reason of scope of the journal. One of the journal return my manuscript after 8 months saying it is not of the standard of journal.
Your Paper Was Rejected - What Next?
- Every researcher experiences rejection from journals
- A few options include appealing the decision, resubmitting, or finding a new journal
- Research data is valuable and should be published somewhere
"Scientific publication is an iterative process. Manuscripts are written, revised, and edited several times. Authors gather input from collaborators, colleagues, and peer reviewers. In a perfect world, this carefully crafted final product would be immediately ready to share. Still, evidence suggests that 21% of papers are rejected without review, and approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review..."
http://arc.aje.com/your-paper-was-rejected-what-next/
The attached article from scientist presents interesting views:
If the journal’s long-awaited response is the dreaded rejection letter, take a deep breath: read through it to get a sense of its major points, then step away. “The emotion is high when you get a negative decision,” says Lakshmi Goyal, editor of the journal Cell Host and Microbe and an editor at Cell Press since 2001. “[Later], go back and . . . look rationally at what is being asked and how it can be addressed.”
The worst thing you can ever do in my opinion is just resubmit the same paper to another journal without addressing the comments at all,” she says. Editors’ comments should also be taken seriously, she adds, as they often have years of experience in both science and publishing.
key to getting the most out of a review is to not approach comments too literally, Cell Press’s Goyal advises. If a reviewer proposes an unrealistic new experiment, the author should try to understand why the reviewer is asking for the experiment and then try to find another way to answer the question. It is a mistake to dismiss criticisms outright, even if a reviewer is making inappropriate suggestions
While some reviews can be snide or dismissive, others offer well-reasoned advice. The trick for getting the most out of reviews, Wang says, is to assume the best of the reviewer. “I never go at it with the mind-set that they are against me,” she says. “I always try to assume they are trying to help me.”
More recently, David Botstein, now at Princeton University, Michael Eisen, now at the University of California, Berkeley, and their colleagues had their paper on cluster analysis, a widely used method for interpreting microarray data, rejected by Science. Botstein recalls phoning the editor to unsuccessfully appeal the rejection. “The only thing I remember telling her was that it was my thought that this would someday be a citation classic, and in this case I was right,” Botstein says. The paper, which was eventually published in PNAS (95:14863-68, 1998), now has nearly 15,000 citations, according to Google Scholar.
http://mobile.the-scientist.com/article/42261/riding-out-rejection
The flow of the paper is also important to avoid the reader getting confused and bored especially in review articles.
It depends: a rejection without explanation can be a form of disqualification baseless professional work one does. Multiple rejections to the same job in different publications would reflect that a problem exists or quality of the work or its contents aceptacón under current consensus of the scientific community in the field concerned. Rejections with explanations can help review and correction work that will allow further consideration by the same or other publication.
Sushanta Kumar Bhowmik (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sushanta_Bhowmik) says
Sometimes we observe that paid publications are well communicating for some corrections and grammar mistakes. But for unpaid publications are regularly rejected for language reason mainly without basic objection in matter.
When you prepare your article easy for review, then tha chances for article to be accepted are good.
How to make your article easy to review - Part 4
25 tips from experienced reviewers on what to look out for before submitting your article...
Links to 3 previous parts of this article are given bellow.
https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/peer-review/how-to-make-your-article-easy-to-review-part-4
Rejection is quite common in research.So try to sense the strength/value of your research after getting rejection comment.Then improve the article as per the comments and resubmit as a new article in the journal.
Rejection is useful to correct the mistakes that were not seen by the author.
Dear @Mahamad, this is good resource about the issue that you have raised.
What to Do When Your Article is Rejected?
How to Read a Rejection Letter?
How to Revise Your Article?
"Even if your article is rejected outright, you should use the editor's and reviewers' feedback to improve it before submitting to another journal. Academia is a small world and it's possible that another journal may ask one or more of the same reviewers to read your article. You wouldn't want a reviewer to see that his or her comments ignored.
Rejection is hard -- believe me, I know! But learn how to read editors' letters, use the feedback constructively, and resubmit your research -- and you're be on the path to publication."
http://gradschool.about.com/od/publishing/a/rejectarticle.htm
>90% probability: Your article was indeed below the journal's standards; so try hard to provide better a manuscript next time or renew your whole strategy in conducting and publishing your stuff. Keep cool after having been rejected, because a professional scientist should have good argument not deep feelings on her/his research efforts--that's your job. It's about getting even better arguments not ebout emotions of being rejected. Not you, but work that was below some standards, have been rejected, this is the message of, at least constructive, reviewers and editors. And most of them are indeed constructive...
All the best, CCC
Rejected article is a form of improvement workshop. Analyze the reasons for the current failures, including the quality of the abstracts and its consistency with the content of the article. Also check the article layout and editorial requirements. At the end of the note on literature. The level of self-citations maintenance to 20%, do not forget to cite articles from the magazine (welcome because it raises IF).
Good luck,
Miroslaw
Rejection is normal and many noble Laureates have got their share of rejection letters.
History shows that lots of future Nobel Laureates had their groundbreaking work rejected by scientific journals. They did not get discouraged and chose to publish their articles in other journals.
This is the lesson we learn from attached nature articles.
Final rejection on the grounds of questionable significance may mean that one journal has closed its door on you, but that is no reason to be cowed into silence. Remember, as you seek a different home for your work, that you are in wonderful company.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6959/full/425645a.html
It is also interesting to see that what happened when
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6959/full/425645a.html
http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2007/03/29/rejecting-future-nobel-laureat/
http://mobile.the-scientist.com/article/28819/nature-rejects-krebs-s-paper-1937
I will communicate to a better Journal. I assume the one rejected my paper were not in a good standard to understand my ideas.
Rejection of manuscript is not important because the said manuscript may be more suitable for a focussed and suitable journal.Of course, the scientific comments are more important which will give direction for the improvement of the manuscript for its real diverse applications. On the contrary , publication of incorrect information, citation manipulation, duplication, exploratory stage publications, etc are more dangerous for the growth of science. In addition to, there are a number of letter to Editor article in my profile, truly speaking such articles should be immediately retracted but unfortunately why Editors promote such Scientific Misconduct.
Working Paper Comments on: Highly sensitive and selective method for detec...
I you have done some valuable research work, effort will never be wasted. Even a manuscript get rejected, still need to be positive and based on the reviews by the reviewers, make the changes and try again until it get accepted.
Some of the main reasons of rejection of the script are:
1. Might be it does not fall in the scope of the Journal/conference where submitted.
2. The manuscript is not formatted as the requirements.
3. manuscript is to short or too long as per max and min limits.
4. The results are unjustifiable by the proposed technique.
5. It's incomprehensible and difficult to understand.
Best to find collaborators with previous publications and write an improved article. One researcher writing alone is held under suspicion and very unlikely to get published in major journals. For proof of discovery you can resister a copyright on your original paper of get it published in a minor journal.
If it rejected without review I ask for reasons if any and look through them. In this case the reasons are not satisfactory. If it rejected after are review I read the comments and use them for improving the paper. Some journals re reject the improved paper without review if improvement is done in short time period and/or if you do not change the title and give reference to review comments. Any way direct or after review reject helps me to work more on the subject.
Getting rejected from a journal can be emotionally traumatic, but it can also be infuriating when the reasons given appear spurious and even deliberately unhelpful...
Rejection can happen after months of silence, or can happen in a matter of days during an initial assessment of your manuscript by the editorial office...
Assuming you have made it over all the pre-screening barriers and your paper has gone out to referees, you can still be rejected, particularly if you don’t respond well to the referees’ comments.
Your job is to convince the editor that you have taken on board everything the referees have said. You don’t have to agree with them or make every single change, but you do need to show that you have understood and considered every comment.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/career/why-are-academic-papers-rejected-journals
Getting rejected can be disappointing , but for me its a reminder that I am not yet where I want to be or I am not superwoman; so I take the letter make corrections or amendments and start all over again.
Rejection from journals is inevitable. Authors should focus not on avoiding rejection but on what their options are after rejection. If you have received reviews of your paper, that information is very valuable. You now have ideas for ways to improve your paper and submit it to a new journal.
That is true; rejection is inevitable. But there are situations where the referees do not give due considerations to the contents and at times do a careless job. But then the writer has to understand the reviewers' comment and work on the paper rather than getting disappointed. Science publication has to be a democratic and liberal process where the opinions of the readers or the reviewer has to be given due consideration. Yes, it is possible that other non-scientific or other interests (such as affiliation of the authors and many such) can influence the review process many times.
A quote from Seelig (2015): frustration and mistakes are a natural part of the learning process, not signs that you should give up.
If everyone always agreed with your ideas, and you’d never know if you were pursuing them for yourself or someone else…….those who have achieved significant accomplishments have all faced people who opposed their ideas.
Rejection seems like a punishment, however, going back to the beginning gives you a chance to do a better job (pp. 150-154).
- Seelig, T. (2015) InsightOut: Get Ideas Out of Your Head and Into the World, HarperCollins Publishers, Broadway, New York, NY.
To me it is a positive thing and should be taken positive. After all, your manuscript will get improved and most of the issues could be resolved before publishing it elsewhere.
So don't panic and do the great work.
Regards
In my case my articles were rejected several time but finally it published in high impact factor journals . my advice is do.not get upset after rejection but improve more your reasearch and resubmit it again in more appropriate journals.
First of all do not worry. This happens to almost all researchers.
If you strongly believe that the work is good and is fit for a journal. then try submitting to another journal. Better would be to revise the paper as per the comments and then submit.
You may also submit it (or a part of the work) to a conference (to get more peer opinions on the work) and later on develop it further and submit to journal.
Many scholars get too disappointed and then immediately submit to another journal. The manuscript is likely to be rejected again in such cases. What you have to do is take some time, distance yourself from the work. Thereafter read the comments from the reviewers. You will realise, what the reviewers said hold water. But most importantly, you will also see the weakness/mistakes in your paper on your own. Then you can start correcting the manuscript. Don't rush.
It can be immensely frustrating when, after many years of research and effort perfecting your research, figures, and manuscript, you receive a rejection letter from your selected journal. Sometimes, this decision comes very quickly. Other times it may take weeks before you hear from the journal, only to receive a long list of negative reviewer comments. If this happens to you, you have several important decisions to make. Should you make the suggested revisions and resubmit (if the editor will allow it)? Should you submit to a new journal, with or without additional revisions? What journal should you submit to now? Here, we will provide some tips for handling your next manuscript rejection, and discuss your options...
http://www.biosciencewriters.com/Why-My-Manuscript-was-Rejected-and-What-can-I-do-about-it.aspx
My reaction to rejecting manuscripts is changeable according to my years in scientific work. Now I am going with the flow of reviewers and see what they said, read carefully their comments then start again to follow their suggestions and send my manuscript to a trusted colleague to read my work. If there is a way to resubmit the rejected manuscript I do that if no then I go to a similar level of the previous journal. Rejecting manuscript does not mean you bad but different viewpoints. I have spent 1 year writing one review article and rejected then spent another year or so to follow the reviewers comments finally accepted. Scientific research needs faith in what to do.
Best regards
Aly
Rejection sometimes can be disappointing. However, you get used to it by having a few reject and many more acceptance. Life is two-faced.
An important topic for discussion you have initiated,
None of the possible reasons for rejections you discussed above was present in my case. My last submission has been rejected by the editor based on not justified reasons of reviewer like the source of data are not mentioned (which is not true. I put all references).
Is there any independent or neutral instance like ELSEVIER or others where I can get some support and open a constructive discussion about the review process of this journal? The question for me is not anymore to publish my manuscript in this journal but to dispute the editors about their review process inviting them to an open discussion.
thank you
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts