novelty of the submitted manuscript is a very important criterion .. that is always the first thing that I will judge when reviewing a paper.

novelty of the submitted manuscript is a very important criterion .. that is always the first thing that I will judge when reviewing a paper.

There are many things that needs to be taken into consideration:

a. choice of journal: first read the instruction to authors - see if your manuscript fit with any specific category - regular article, review, commentary, etc. Care should be taken to see that it fit with the subject that they cover, number of words, formatting instructions. Wrong choice means that the paper might get rejected after couple of months - if not an editorial screening rejection right away!

b. Specifically to see if they have published any work related to the subject of your interest. e.g. you want to publish on 'topic x'. See if they have published 'topic x' in their journal. This will give some idea if they would be interested in your work.

c. Cite the papers from the journal that was publish, especially if they have covered same topic. If there is an evidence that they have published in the topic of your interest, that means, they might review your paper. At the same time, if they have published on the same topic (e.g. a review article), there might be a fair chance that your article might not be considered if that was a review paper.

d. See if you know anyone from the editorial board. See if you have any conflict of interest with them. For example, a rival group working on similar areas or a friendly editorial board members of known acquaintance.

e. What is your research output? Many people who are interested in publishing have no history of publishing. Either their impact factor is low. Publication history shows lots of gaps in publishing, publishing in a low quality journals or paid publications, which are not indexed journals. This might work against the person who wants to submit to a top tier journal.

f. Reputation counts. Affiliation with a decent university, decent academic standing helps as well. If your university is not that popular and your reputation is not good enough, there is fair chance that the papers will not get accepted. That said, it is a generalized statement. It doesn't mean that those who fit the criteria might not make it into a top tier journals. There is always an exception to the rule. If your co-author has a better reputation and you're a novice author (e.g. a phd student or a post doc, or a person with less number of papers); ask a senior person to communicate with the editors. Additionally, if you have been publishing your paper in a low single digit impact journals, don't try to submit to a two digit impact journals on a random basis. You will imply waste your time waiting for the reviews to come. Mostly it will get rejected and you will have 2-3 months. Gradually you have to build the reputation.

g. Sloppy correspondence to the editor/editorial office - Who will read a mail coming from someone that doesn't have a reputation in the field, unknown university, funny or inappropriate email id ([email protected]; [email protected]). Hey John, what'sup? I have a manuscript entitled, "How to increase productivity by micromanagement of employees: a slave paradigm". Surely it will go to the bin at once it reaches the destination. Please make the correspondence formal. Submit the abstract below your email (sometimes, attachments might not be opened). Briefly highlight the merits of the paper (what it adds to the literature), why you think that that particular journal was your first choice, and convince the editor then request for a no obligation review. Respond to queries on a timely manner.

h. Argument with the reviewers. Reviewing a manuscript doesn't pay anything. People who accept to review your paper; read couple of time, spend some time typing it and send their comments to the editorial office. Don't take comments too personally, but take it as a constructive criticism. Don't argue with them as if you're the God, and you know everything in that domain. Your ego can simply gets your papers rejected. Appreciate what they have done, thank them, and make changes appropriately. If you really think the reviewer was wrong; politely say it. Provide citation to prove that he/she was wrong in their assertion.

If someone wants to be in academics, they have to gradually build their reputation. Publish papers ('publish or perish'), attend conferences and network with peers and subject matter experts, accept to review articles for other journals, communicate with leaders in the domain ask for reprints, and ask doubts or critique their works in a friendly way. These things will take considerable time and efforts. If you did follow what I summarized here, I cannot guarantee an overnight overnight success as there is no silver bullet for success.

I hope it helps.

http://pandi-perumal.blogspot.com