Apparently it is irrelevant, if the article has potential it should get published irrespective of authors experience in the field and their publications. You should try with some other journal.

All best!!

Baloney, not less than 5 publications (seriously), I published my systematic reviews in BMJ during my master program and have no prior primary research publication. However, to some extent I do agree that you should have experience in primary research before doing a review but the criterion that you should have 5 prior publications is a joke.

It seems to me to be a polite way of refusal.

Thanks Dr. Theophilus Lakiang and Prof. Subir Bandyopadhyay for your contributions. Am just curious to know from the scholars and experts in the platform

Maybe what is trying to say is that, you should work more on that area before sending the review paper. Secondly it may chuck you to no that the editor has interest in what you are doing, that is why he has to turn than the paper for is own to be out first. See most editor or review are balsa when they reviewing paper in there area

Apparently it is irrelevant, if the article has potential it should get published irrespective of authors experience in the field and their publications. You should try with some other journal.

All best!!

In addition to the preceding responses, I agree that you had a nonsensical response. I suggest you submit it elsewhere.

Thanks for your responses Engr Dr. Mrs Imhade P. Okokpujie , Dr. Mayur Nandikar and Dr. Daniel Doss ..

I know that rejects can be painful but they make reseachers more meticulous subsequently.

Therefore, kindly ensure that your review article addresses the following remark

1. How many review articles on the subject matter are currently available and what makes yours unique.

2. Review articles are expected to be an updated and unique discussion on a subject matter. Thus, suggesting possible reseach gaps in existing literatures and I suggest the use of scopus.com to source the relevant articles.

3. Perhaps the article requires some technical insights on some salient phenomenal. For instance, I haven't seen any review article on nanofluids that didn't discuss their preparation methodologies, impacted influences on thermophysical properties, challenges in estimating some parameters and future prospects etc.

In conclusion, kindly peer review the article within your research cluster before submission.

If the above remarks are adequately addressed, then I wish you luck in your subsequently submission to another journal.

Regards

Other journals may accept your review paper, I remember after my proposal which include literature review in my area of research, I published a review paper.

Its just a polite way of refusal.

Thanks to Damola S Adelekan , Isaac Adekunle Samuel , Ademolawa Michael Adedipe

To review papers in a particular field, you must be well versed in the field. This can be seen via your quality published papers in the area.

However, if an author reviews a paper in a new field, his/her background in academics should not a prerequisite for the acceptance of the paper. It is the rigor of the discussions and the richness of the content that matters. I wrote a review paper on the use of fluoride in toothpastes with some other co-authors though it was a new field to me. What matters is how thorough and current the review has been carried out. Experts in the field who review the paper are the right people to voice out its appropriateness and not an editor sheerly ignoring it for review because the author does not have already written papers in the field.

To review papers in a particular field, you must be well versed in the field. This can be seen via your quality published papers in the area.

However, if an author reviews a paper in a new field, his/her background in academics should not a prerequisite for the acceptance of the paper. It is the rigor of the discussions and the richness of the content that matters. I wrote a review paper on the use of fluoride in toothpastes with some other co-authors though it was a new field to me. What matters is how thorough and current the review has been carried out. Experts in the field who review the paper are the right people to voice out its appropriateness and not an editor sheerly ignoring it for review because the author does not have already written papers in the field.

A person well-versed in a topic should be allowed to write a review paper. If the person writing the paper does not have prior publications in that field, then the person should have academic credentials that speaks of the person's mastery or expertise in the field. Examples of this may include having done your PhD work in that area, having supervised graduate students in their research work in that area, having taught courses in that field or having considerable field experience in that area.

Well, it is not a must but it is ideal to have some publications in a field/area before one can review in such field or subject for publication.

Review article should not be misconstrued as dumping of published literature in one field into a manuscript. It requires critical analysis of the published results which can possibly be done by a person who has worked extensively and contributed in such a field. Every leading and reputed journal expects this criteria to be met.

Specific journals for review articles (Ex: Materials Science and Engineering R, Progress in Material Science etc) usually invite experts in current fields to write review articles. Most of the leading journals require to submit the review manuscript to the editorial board to get prior approval.

A review paper in a particular field will not be published continuously unlike regular manuscripts based on research works/experimentation. It summarizes and analysis the progress in a field. Hence, it would be reviewed more rigorously to that of a regular article. It would be obviously expected that the author is a known face in a research field.