In your opinion/experience, what are main reasons of rejecting a manuscript by international journal reviewers?

Think most of the rejections can be avoided if authors are responding / complying to some of the changes requested by reviewers / editors. Agreed with reasons shared by previous researchers / scholars. Others reasons include:

"Poor quality of the work described" is the most important reason of rejection in my experience as a reviewer. "A paper being a little out of the scope of the journal" was the only reason I got twice in my experience of submitting papers (I was a rather good author and am retired now).

Dear Professor

Thank you very much for your great advice and worthful experience.

Regards

In your opinion/experience, what are main reasons of rejecting a manuscript by international journal reviewers?

Think most of the rejections can be avoided if authors are responding / complying to some of the changes requested by reviewers / editors. Agreed with reasons shared by previous researchers / scholars. Others reasons include:

Dear Prof. Han Ping Fung

Thank you very much for your helpful and detailed description.

Regards

Dear Fausto Galetto

Thanks a lot for your great comment.

It is so important and precise subject.

Regards.

Professor Hun Wei-Lee's paper is splendid and highly directive; a paper like that on papers based on qualitative methods would be equally as helpful.

I utterly agree with Prof. Han.

I do agree with and recommend the views expressed by Dr Han Ping Fung....have a great day!

Cause are:

1. Objectives are not targeted

2. Findings are not aligned with objectives

3. Objectives dont support title

4. Research methodology not clear

5. Introduction or abstract does not maintain syntax

6. Discussion and conclusion hold generic something.

Ever journal has instructions for authors if followed and concerns of reviewers are clarified there is no chance of rejection until and unless as said by our respectable retired prof. Dr. Tatsuo T. that quality of work is very poor.

Dear Professpr Ashique Ali

Thanks a lot,

These points are so important and tangible.

Regards

All the reasons that have been indicated by you are in common with the rejection of scientific research being evaluated by international reviewers.

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 simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.

Dear Professor Gadallah

Thanks a lot,

I think the numbers 4 and 6, are most important reasons specially in synthetic researches.

Regards.

I am exactly agree with Professor Han and Professor Mohamed.

This is an important question. In addition to the excellent answers already given, there is a bit more to add.

In addition to the cogent list of reasons for rejecting a paper given by @Han Ping Fung, there are a couple more things to observe:

Theorems and proofs: It is very helpful (some would say essential) to encapsulate the results presented in a research paper with one or more theorems. In this context, a theorem is a concise, provable assertion about the mathematical basis for what is presented in a paper. By giving a proof such an assertion (based on definitions and one more lemmas), an author calls attention to the rigourousness of the presented results.

Absence of theorems and proofs in a paper suggests a shallow view of a subject, which prompts rejection of your paper.

Sensitivity to earlier results and their possible extensions and refinements: It is very important to talk to a reviewer, making it clear to the reviewer that you are aware of one or more of the results introduced by others and which are related to your own results. Keep in mind that a reviewer has spent years working in a subject area you are exploring in your paper. Letting a reviewer know your sidelights and observations about has been presented by others, helps a reviewer connect with your paper.

Insensitivity to earlier results makes a reviewer uneasy and inclined to reject your paper.

As my knowledge, a research paper was rejected by basing the following factors: (1) 40% or more matter was copied (2) Quality of the paper was less (3) No Strength.

Dear Professor Peters

Thank you very much for your close attention,

I was encountered to these two important points you mentiones, I think some researchers don't consider it and it cause to rejection of their manuscripts, rapidly.

Regards

I am totally agree with Dr. Mohamed G. E. Gadallah

Agree with all previous responses.

As they explained, there are many reasons for rejecting a manuscript.

In my view, for accepting a paper in a standard journal , it must be novel in ideas, free of language and typing errors, all figures and tables must be clear and adequate, the paper must be within the scope of the journal, a good literature survey must be done and includes more number of recent references. The methodology and results should be clear and adequate to prove your work. Most of the journals propose a template or format. Authors must format your manuscript as per the journal's requirement. Some journals have minimum / maximum page limits.

Before submitting, the manuscript must pass the plagiarism check.

Thanks,

Rohith

Dear Professor Goli Srinivasarao

Thanks a lot,

I think the points you mentioned are about researches that are not original or self dependent.

Regards.

Dear Rohith R Krishnan

Thanks a lot,

I totally agree with you.

Regards.

In my opinion the paper should be carefully formatted according to the style of the journal to which author want to submit and idea of the paper should be clear and the journal should send the paper to the relevant reviewers of the field.

Dear Dr Shah

Thanks a lot,

Unfortunately, Editors doesn't send the manuscript to the relevant reviewers, often.

As the editor of an international, open-access journal, I find that at least one of 3 main elements are raised in most rejections:

1. "Thin" research - trying to build a major argument from small or limited data or situations.

2. Local significance only - what may appear compelling in US circumstances may have little to no relevance in India, Belgium, Botswana or New Zealand. "International " requires a commonality of relevance.

3. Clumsy or awkward English expression - like it or not, most scholarship is presented in English. Native English-speaking Critical Friends make a huge difference in the final edit and , thus, acceptance rates.

Dear Dr David Beagly

Thanks a lot,

I think your first point is the most important reason of the rejecting manuscripts.

I totally agree with dear Tatsuo Tabata, it is the quality or the (NOVELTY)especially which the reviewer seeks. Regards

The following are a few criteria that should be met in order to achieve this level of excellence in research writing:

1. Originality

The research should be relevant-in time and content.

2. Technical Quality

The research question should be clearly communicated and addressed in the abstract, discussion, and conclusion.

• The study design should be technically sound. The methodology adopted should be clearly stated or described. That is, all relevant information should be provided-inclusion/exclusion criteria, methods, materials, etc.
• The results should be statistically or substantively verifiable and should be conclusive.
• A well-structured, logical argument should be presented with due credit to previous studies. That is, the relevant literature should be appropriately cited.
• The drawbacks or disadvantages of the study (for instance, limitations of the technique and/or methods used) should be discussed or listed.

3. Presentation

• The language should be grammatically correct, concise, and comprehendible.
• The findings should be presented in the best possible format, i.e., as figures, graphs, photographs, tables, etc.
• Headings, subheadings, and figure and table legends should be accurate and informative, yet concise.

Source : REASONS FOR MANUSCRIPT REJECTION Cactus Communications Pvt. Ltd.

I did not suggest rejection of a manuscript based on the first review unless: (1) It is clearly not original, or (2) It contains severe errors, or (3) Its content is irrelevant to the journal scope. Otherwise, I provide sufficient feedback to the authors for enhancing and/or correcting their manuscript.