I first started publishing my paper 4 years ago and I tried sending my articles to known publications (which I won’t disclose here for apparent reason). Mostly, my papers were rejected immediately during desktop review. (Anyway, I found success in other publications). The common reason given that my papers were not “aligned” to their publishing objectives or aims. The strangest thing Is that i get invitations as reviewer very frequently with these publications who once rejected my papers, even now. From the abstracts, these papers which they have invited me to review, were similar to what I wanted to submit to them previously. So, I am good enough to be a reviewer but never good enough to be an author. That thought sounds strange to me, in fact. So, who are reviewing my papers, if I was ever successful in my submissions to these known publications? It just wouldn’t add up. The invitations as reviewer still come in every week. Why?
Dear Sir,
When a publisher rejects an author but invites them to serve as a reviewer, it may seem contradictory, but it reflects the distinct roles of authors and reviewers. Manuscripts are often rejected due to issues like poor structure, insufficient data, or misalignment with the journal's focus, while reviewing emphasizes expertise, critical thinking, and the ability to evaluate others' work objectively. Publishers recognize that an author’s rejection does not diminish their subject knowledge or their capacity to provide valuable feedback. Reviewing requires a different skillset, including impartiality and attention to detail, which the author may possess despite their manuscript being declined. Additionally, publishers may seek to involve respected academics in the peer review process, valuing their expertise even if their submission failed to meet publishing criteria. Ultimately, the dual roles underscore that writing and reviewing are distinct activities, with separate standards and expectations contributing to the publication process's overall rigor.
Dear Caleb,
We could not agree more with your observation. What you describe is absolutely true.
The same journals that did not give us a chance to pass peer review are now asking for our opinions to decide what is good for them to publish.
We believe that peer reviewing is not what it used to be. We have noticed that these journals sometimes assign unknown reviewers to evaluate papers, while our submissions are sent to top authors in the field. These experts often appear to view the work of others as insignificant compared to their own.
That being said, we are happy to say; that we have learned much more from rejections than from acceptances.
We agree with you, sir: what does not break us will only make us stronger.
Best regards,
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction