Have you ever had the feeling that they rejected your article and that the comments are out of place and that it gives the impression that the reviewer did not even understand your study? It has happened to me, I have once claimed the editor and they have returned it. to send to other reviewers, but how is this possible? What should we do when this happens? What do you think, have you ever happened?
Well, I have faced a similar reaction when I had submitted one paper in a reputable international journal. The first review was very harsh. :(
But, I answered their atrocious comments using peaceful and valid verbose explaining my point of research.
It was accepted then. :)
Try to be calm. Resilience is better than Resistance!
Best regards,
SQ
Well, I have faced a similar reaction when I had submitted one paper in a reputable international journal. The first review was very harsh. :(
But, I answered their atrocious comments using peaceful and valid verbose explaining my point of research.
It was accepted then. :)
Try to be calm. Resilience is better than Resistance!
Best regards,
SQ
I had experience that one of the reviewer did not have holistic approach to the paper and its structure. I politely, with clear arguments, replied on reviewer comments.
The paper was sent to third reviewer and finally accepted.
Also, I once had a situation that reviewer comments was not polite and professional. In that situation, I wrote to the editor, because it is important for them to know the tone of reviewers they have... Editor agreed that a reviewer was not polite and indelicate...
I have bad experience not with reviewers but the Journal Editor in chief, who rejected paper which really fit to the Journal?? Very strange sonce he did not proceed it to reviewers?
When I was editor/co-editor I always ask for more reviewers (6) then if it is needed (3) I chose those who are better for the paper author.
There are very different reviewers, some are not really specialist not from the field of the paper and for that reason may be some rejections. Many called reviewers declined to be reviewers and there is a problem for Editors. :-(
Yes it happened sometimes, more than article rejected because of reviewers or not read .
Dear Catia Cillóniz
Yes I read the rejected manuscript carefully. Thereafter, I revise it thoroughly with particular emphasis on rejection grounds, and finally re-submit the manuscript to another suitable journal for publication.
Thanks!
thank you for your opinions, but for me personally, it is very hard to prepare the article for another journal, to put it in a new format according to what the new magazine asks, it is hard, but being positive helps a lot
Yes . I am facing too .
Even editor send paper back after so many months without giving relevant comments.
Don’t know what they want..
Well....rejection is also an important part of publication process of our research article. If the reviewer and, in turn, the editor accepts all the articles submitted everyday by huge number of researchers......no journal can survive or maintain its quality or the impact for a considerable period of time.
For me, many rejection-led manuscripts have been transformed into quality publications after series of resubmission, waiting, so called frustration and ultimately final publication in a new or modified version leading to real satisfaction.
To comply with the potent reviewers or editors need hard work on the part of author(s) in the form of reading, reinterpreting, revising or meticulous editing on the manuscript before peer review.
Rejection .......thus......is only an improvement process.....let's accept it with a positive gesture.
Dear Catia,
We all know that the review process is a hazardous process. Good papers can be rejected. Bad papers can be accepted. There is much inbreeding in the peer review system. This is mainly the case when we disagree with what might be called "sacred cows" in a certain domain of knowlege.
When I have a paper rejected I use to do the following:
1) Analyze the quality of rejection, that is, the quality of reviews and the Editor-in-Chief's comments
2) If I find them ungrounded and even injustified, I write to the Editor-in- Chief in a polite manner and justify why I found them ungrounded and injustified. I inform the Editor-in-Chief that even so I accept his/her rejection decison.
3) I try to improve the quality of my manuscript, and submit it to another appropriate journal.
4) This process has proved to be successful on many occasions.
Best regards.
Orlando
Yes, it has happened many times. Then I used to send the paper to the other suitable journal after few required modifications.
I think there are too many journal, publishing has become a business, researchers every day receive invitation emails to be reviewers of many articles, I think there comes a time when the reviewer has so much to review that he does not finish reading a complete article and still gives his comments
This has not happened to me before .................
And frankly I hope it does not happen to me
regards
The scope of the journal is related with the strengths of the reviewers. Also, it is important the impact factor of the journal and if it is open access or not. In case of rejection, I think that the best is to do as Mahesh Kumar, that is, to improve as possible our article an send to another journal. In some cases the review comments are to general that are difficult to understand or to take into account into the improvement of the article, however, from my point of view if some reviewer write some observation it can be for some reason.
Many years ago I was forced to agree to be a reviewer for one and the Soviet Journals whose subjects were polymers (it was difficult for me to refuse because my Laboratory Boss was Deputy Editor). In the accompanying letter, that magazine asked reviewers because the editorial portfolio was always full to reject about 70% of the articles ... I was young and my rejection rate was about 90%
Much later, I was asked to become a reviewer for one of the Polysaccharide magazines.
The difficulty in this case was that if the reviewer recommended the article for publication - he had to completely correct the English language of this article. But quite often the language of some good articles was so bad that it would have been necessary to rewrite the article completely.
Some of the papers are contextual. The content may depend upon prevailing situation, demographics which sometime , reviewer may not appreciate or may not be aware. Such situation, may be avoided with multiple reviewers.
It happened to me, i had two complementary articles Part I and Part II.
Part I had its own contribution but it is not the big deal i had only to develop this first part to achieve what really matters in the Part II.
Well, guess what?! Part I get accepted and Part II was rejected (they sent the two papers to different reviewers).
Sometimes the reviewers are just mean and jealous; one of them gave me just one negative phrase as a comment, which is false.
After this, i'm very veryyyy happy to leave the academic research.
Yes, it has happened many times and I didn't know what I should do? I think there are some reviewers when seeing something wrong in the paper, they reject this paper without any review and writing any comments sometimes not related with the content of the paper!!
Or maybe some reviewers gave the paper to his student for review, which didn't has the experience for reviewing this paper!!
The peer-review system actually harms the advancement of science and ultimately human advancement because it is often used to weed out competition by people who are not qualified or knowledgeable enough to referee the work properly in the first place.
Leonid: "In the accompanying letter, that magazine asked reviewers because the editorial portfolio was always full to reject about 70% of the articles ..." - a frequent situation with so-called "top" journals of "top" publishers: the obligatory "peer"-reviewing system has been designed not, as claimed, to improve publications but to reject most of them (except few, for some reasons - personal preferences of the editor, position of the author, fashionable topic &c. -privileged) ["Reviewing works before acceptance for publication is a method used by the élite to defend their positions" - Fred Hoyle].
Peer review should be abandoned! Review should be done in published papers by other scientists (not editors) either accepting, rejecting or correcting other works!
Sometimes it doesn't make sense.
I sent an article which had been rejected earlier by a journal. It turned out that two out of three reviewers had recommended for publication whilst the third reviewer rejected it.
I effected the corrections and submitted to a different journal but from the Same Publishing house.
After receiving *"three Minor revisions recommendations",* I effected these corrections and submitted.
The editor now REJECTED THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT....
JUST BECAUSE he had been informed by the editorial committee that my article had been rejected EARLIER..... and for that matter he was rejecting it again because the supposed comments were not addressed in my new manuscript.
I suspect some reject papers in SOLIDARITY WITH COLLEAGUES.
I ones got a paper accepted in a journal of high repute only to be rejected when it was due for production because according to the editorial board the guest editor who accepted the work to be published had ever worked in an institution I was affiliated with. Based on that the paper was rejected because they believe there was conflict of interest there. My question is who selected the guest editor in the first place? We are doing great disservice to future generation
I cannot hesitate to say that review system in the world's leading journals are BIASED. The editorial board, particularly editors (not all but many) decides first that the paper should be rejected or accepted and according they assign the reviewers. Whatever the comments they (editors) receive from the reviewers (even though the comments are irrelevant), they just put their opinion and recommend the EIC to reject/accept. In most of the cases, the editor-in-chief (EIC) blindly follow the editors' recommendation. Because of such BIASING, GOOD papers are getting rejected and POOR papers are getting accepted. If any survey will be conducted then such things will clearly come in as the outcome. It is truly very shocking. This is not my opinion but this is what I have been facing. I am from electrical engineering background and my above detail are about IEEE PES journals.
On the objections, the EIC justify the decision too rudely and badly. Further, on complains to the higher authorities, such as IEEE IPR Office, they will let you know that "an editor has final decision-making authority over the acceptance or rejection of material submitted for publication". This means that you can do NOTHING against the decision of the editor.
It is really shocking that where are we going as long as publications are concerned. Therefore, in my opinion Completely Blind Review may be a good solution to such problems.
Hi Mahamad, What you say about your experiences in refereeing appears to be very serious indeed and may be more widespread than most realise.
Given all this negative / bad experiences what is the possible solution to the review process. @ Samuel Adu-Acheampong @ Trevor John Hawkeswood @ Joseph Adjebeng-Danquah
What if we can have a powerful social research forum like researchgate or a section within researchgate that will allow people who are constantly at the receiving end of this injustice in the research world to publish some of the most ridiculous rejection reasons as a way of naming and shaming individuals and journals who are the most guilty of such practices. I believe the world of research and or science will develop faster without them. The name and shame can go a long way to help researchers differentiate, study and collaborate with honest and outstanding researchers and avoid people with big academic titles but in reality not researchers or don't even have the command of basic concepts in their areas of research but thrives on institutional affiliations and legacies as well as other hidden stuffs to gain fame in the world of research.
This happened with me and I got rejection after 1st revision and editor spoiled my time about 4 month. Out of 2 referees, one referee was continuously rejecting the paper without highlighting anything. That was pity but I was improved it and now they are under review more than previous impact.
Krishna
While peer reviewing has many advantages, it is possible that high quality papers be rejected by the reviewers if they don't understand the topic or if they don't agree with the ideas mentioned in those papers.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking