Every Journal has its own specific guide line which must be strictly adhered to. Failure to do this the article is rejected. Yes You can resubmit your article to the same journal after modification

After you submit for the first time you should have email communication, or something to that effect (eg through their journal online submission site). You will be advised whether you should resubmit or not. If it is rejected try elsewhere - but only if you think you have addressed the issues raised in the revised version. It is possible that some of the reviewers comments are just plain wrong, but you need to be pretty sure its them in error, not you; and even then that might be a result of the manuscripts failure to clearly communicate. So in the end, the key issue is whether the manuscript meets the journals standards; and so its also worth following this discussion

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_a_paper_gets_rejected_in_one_journal_can_the_SAME_be_sent_to_another_journal

Yes it can, but it is probably better idea to submit the manuscript to another journal (after the suggested modification). Editor usually recommends resubmission, and if there is not such advice, that can mean: out of scope, or weak references, or low quality for particular journal (theoretical or experimental) etc.

I don't see any problem doing that. Of course, you should, at least, deal with the drawbacks pointed by the reviewers that prevented your paper from being accepted before.

Thanks all, it look likes that you can resubmitt your rejected manuscript to the same journal but after carrying out the modifications. How the editorial board will react to such situation, does he re-sent the rejected manuscript to the same referees (reviewers) or not?.

I agree with you Peter, but sometimes for certain reasons the authors wanted the manuscript to be published in this journal. The editorial board has rejected the manuscript for major comments. The authors carried out modifications and dealt with the comments and resubmitted. I am asking is there a time between rejection of the manuscript to be resubmitted as a new mamuscript . For example, if a manuscript is accepted for publication with comments, the editor will ask to deal with comments and re-send as soon as possible or if is delayed, it will be considered as a new manuscript.

What will be the reaction of the editor-in chief in this case. Does he will accepted as a new manuscript and send it to the same referees or rejected without reviewing.

It CAN be - anyone can hit submit and send a manuscript in. Whether it will be welcomed back for a new round of review by the editors will depend why they rejected it.

If it was a poor topic fit, then it's inappropriate to waste their time. If the revisions were minor to moderate, it's a similar waste - if they thought it would be that easy to fix, they'd have given a 'Revise and Resubmit' rather than a full reject.

Personally, I'd touch base with the editors of the specific journal by email, and ask if they would be interested in taking a new look at a substantially revised manuscript.

In my experience, it would be very unlikely to go to the same reviewers. Rather, it would likely be treated as a new submission.

Thanks Naomi, but what's happened if the manuscript is sent to other reviewers and accepted. By time the ex-reviewers (previous ones) who rejected the manuscript discovered that the manuscript is published in the same journal.

Fathi,

Reviewers don't accept or reject a manuscript. They provide recommendations to the editors, who make the decision. And so, if the editors decided to accept it based on new recommendations from other reviewers, it really wouldn't have anything to do with the original group.

Of course, it is team work, a referee can recommend to be accepted or rejected but personally if my comments are not taken by the authors and are critical and valuable. I will write to the editor asking to explain. Our job is to improve the quality of manuscript.

Very interesting, Fathi, and perhaps a cultural difference creeping in as well? I would guess that in the case of journals I review for, a reviewer who questioned editorial decisions more than once or twice would probably not be offered future reviews.

Mind you, most editors are excellent - and do a laudable job of sorting/sifting reviewer feedback when making their decisions - I've just always been aware that the power rests ultimately with them.

If you have a good and interesting article and it is rejected, that might be because it doesn't meet a few standards the publisher needs your article to meet in order to publish it. If your article doesn't meet one publisher's criteria, it doesn't mean that it won't meat another one's?

Interesting.

Yup, it can be re-submitted if the editor gives a chance of re-submission. Sometimes the editors mention that there is no possibility of re-submission, then you can't re-submit it to the same journal. For example, one of my manuscript was rejected in ichthyological research, but the editor gave me a chance of re-submission after incorporating the major comments. When I logged into their portal there was not an option of re-submission of manuscript which usually remains for accepted articles. I submitted it as a new submission but editor sent my manuscript back to me and requested for the author's response sheet to the major comments which he pointed out at first revision. Second time I submitted my manuscript again as a new submission but this time I attached the author's response sheet also and the editor accepted it and sent the manuscript for review process. Hope this example could help. All the best for your research.

Indeed yes. I have done this many times and it was accepted in the second time.

I had this experience as a referee. A paper had a serious gap in a proof so I recommended to reject it. I dont know what the editors answer to the authors was exactly, but I imagine it was not accepting the paper. Several months later, the same paper arrived to me from a different editor of the same journal. This time the proof was correct, I recommended acceptance and the paper was published. I dont know how  the editorial committee proceeded internally, but the second editor knew that I had been the referee of the first try.

Dear Fathi, it depends on the journal. You need to follow "Guide to authors" in case if you want to re-submit previously rejected manuscript to the same journal. Some journals clearly stated that they won't consider the re-submission of previously rejected manuscripts. However, some of the journals do consider the re-submission of previously rejected manuscripts but these re-submission should be the result of significant re-writing and additional experimentation as suggested by the reviewers. Hope it would be the answer of your question

Dear Fathi,

I think it would be very much worth send an e-mail to the editor-in-chief of the journal, explaining the situation, the previous feedback and the changes you've made/plan to make. If they are less than enthusiastic, then you could quickly save yourself another two years of pain, however, try to check the guideline for author for the that journal, might they write about this issue whether accept or they do not accept the re-submission of the previously rejected articles

I have recently done it. The paper was initially recejcted by one referee, who provided some comments, and the editor to this paper added some further comments. I have addressed the comments of both of them, contacted the editor and asked what (s)he would have thought about me going for a second submission at that same journal. (S)He said (s)he would have treated it as a new submission and selected different referees. Thus, I submitted the paper, but was eventually rejected by the referees.

As someone previously answered, it does not cost to press "send" when going for a second submission of a paper initially rejected; however, contacting the editor before the second submission and tell her/him what you changed might be a good strategy to limit a possible outright rejection.

Well said @Luca Fumarco

first, that is absolutely based on the editors reasons, it follows, manuscript rejected by force major or minor and it was not maybe in scope of the submitted journal. second, it likely does not any invention.

good luck

I recently resubmitted a manuscript to the same journal after its rejection, and it was accepted! I’d like to share this experience.

Before the resubmission, I send a pre-submission inquiry to the editor in chief. The answer was “Submit the manuscript with a document that explain ‘why the manuscript should be reconsidered’”. Then, I did it. After a revision, my manuscript was accepted.

There are important notes:

1. There was a significant referee’s misunderstanding in the first submission.

2. The manuscript was extensively revised following the referee’s comments in the first submission.

3. I improved my method, and the results were significantly improved.

I explained these facts in the document which submitted together with the manuscript. Then, the result was acceptance. So, please note that I never simply resubmitted the same manuscript and I explained into the details in the document. It is also important that I never criticized the first referee, but I revised my manuscript so that readers do not misunderstand again.

This question posted six years ago, and still very active. Everybody including myself suffer same problem. I’m happy if this example helps someone.