Never argue with editors. It is extremely hard to reverse a rejection letter. Keep uploading to next journal and move on peacefully. I have faced over 175 rejections so far. It is futile to ask an explanation from editors. Paper publication is akin to gambling. A manuscript may or may not be published. Since you have done a good work and submitted a well written manuscript, it does not mean that it should be always accepted. Accept the reality of research arena lest you become frustrated and giving up research. There are all kinds of bias existing in publication domain. Try again, again and again until your manuscript is accepted by some journal. If an editor or a reviewer premeditated rejection, he will definitely find out an awkward reason to reject.

When a paper is rejected we feel down and desperately try to understand the reasons behind the same. This is the time when we are driven more by the emotion than the logic. Please take some time to understand the rejection reasons pointed out by the editor and the reviewer, analyze and take action to improve and the submit to another journal. That worked for me in couple of times.

If you still have questions, you can have a polite discussion, however a heated discussion should be avoided to keep the future submission scope open for than journal!

Thanks very much, Dr Roy.

Never argue with editors. It is extremely hard to reverse a rejection letter. Keep uploading to next journal and move on peacefully. I have faced over 175 rejections so far. It is futile to ask an explanation from editors. Paper publication is akin to gambling. A manuscript may or may not be published. Since you have done a good work and submitted a well written manuscript, it does not mean that it should be always accepted. Accept the reality of research arena lest you become frustrated and giving up research. There are all kinds of bias existing in publication domain. Try again, again and again until your manuscript is accepted by some journal. If an editor or a reviewer premeditated rejection, he will definitely find out an awkward reason to reject.

Many thanks to you, Dr Isaac Dinaharan. Your comment is quite apt and very encouraging.

Good answer sir

I agree with Isaac.... We have all received rejections and they are never fun especially if you put your heart & soul into a project.... but I agree NEVER fight with the editor... if they have not already given your feedback via the reviewers, it is fine to simply ask for any feedback that might help you in the future...... Otherwise, might take another look at your paper and make slight modifications based on their comments and then submit to new journal.... Good Luck!

Thanks, Dr Patricia Ann Herlihy

Although I agree with the majority of the comments already made, I have some additional advice that might be useful. If you take a little time to reflect on the reviews before coming to a decision about whether to contact the editor or not and you note that you have received some valuable feedback from one reviewer who is not averse to eventual publication, while the other review is very weak, it might be worthwhile revising your manuscript to take into account the comments made, then writing to the editor explaining that the second review is so weak that you are not convinced of the person's suitability to review the article/that you are not convinced that the second reviewer has even read the manuscript/... It is useful to take into account the fact that in many cases the reviewers themselves do not agree on whether a manuscript should be published or not, and that publishing houses prefer to leave the editorial board to make a decision on the basis of two reviews received than to spend their time contacting a third reviewer. I have encountered several occasions where it is not clear whether a reviewer has even read the manuscript or not before sending in a note saying that the paper is unsuitable because the review itself is so sloppy that no substantiating remarks have been provided. The reviewer's report on the suitability and standard of the work should summarise the work that the authors have done, clarifying why it fails to meet standards, thereby justifying the decision made. This may only take a couple of sentences, but without any convincing content to a review, I would suggest that you are well within your right to request a third review. Finally, if the reviews received do not appear to be terribly pertinent, do consider why – did you provide the optimal keywords, for instance, thereby assisting the journal staff to identify suitable reviewers? You might reexamine and reiterate the keywords that you believe would be helpful in identifying the ideal reviewer, emphasising the most important terms, asking the editor to request a third review. There is another point that it might be useful to be aware of: reviewers can provide private comments to the editors explaining their decision (for instance, that they have seen the same manuscript several times already and the authors have made no effort to improve the work in the light of detailed reviews already performed). Such comments would result in a speedy decision by the editor not to reopen the review process, thereby only slowing the review down marginally in comparison to approaching a new journal for a complete review. When a third review is requested, the expert invited will generally be asked to assess the paper and the reviews received in reaching a decision on the suitability of the work. A carefully revised manuscript taking into account the revisions recommended, arguing for or against them and highlighting the changes made to the manuscript could strengthen your case considerably with a third reviewer. Whatever decision you make, don't take the review process personally – it is the best means we have of assessing papers, but it is far from perfect.