I wrote an article that I sent to be considered for publication for several journals. One prestigious journal rejected the article on the basis that it does not contribute to the common ground of scholarship of the contributors of the journal (they did not say that the article does not fall within their scope).
A second journal accepted the article for the same reason for which it has been rejected by the first journal; one of the reviewers said that the article is not similar to anything in their altitudes and that is why they think it would be a good contribution to the journal.
Where do you think academic journals stand regarding their motives or reasons for accepting and/or rejecting manuscripts? Should a researcher in a certain discipline go after innovation or should s/he go on the steps of those who preceded him?
Muthana - what you describe is just the nature of academic authorship. Different journals - with different editors, reviewers etc - do different things. As a strategy, when I write a manuscript I identify a shortlist of 3-5 journals that I will target - in a rank order of preference/impact etc. If I am lucky, then the first one accepts. However, I've had enough experience to know that I cannot predict the 'nuances' of editors and reviewers. I have questioned this several times in the past - but with no satisfactory outcome. Therefore, if one journal rejects my article I move on to the next journal on my list.
Dear Muthana Makki Mohammedali,
A very important question. On the one hand, the standards of reviewing and editorial requirements between individual journals are sometimes very diverse. On the other hand, fully meeting all editorial requirements may limit the issue of innovativeness in the field of scientific research as well as their description and presentation in scientific publications. It is a complex problem which concerns many fields of science, scientific research and describing their results in specific types of scientific publications written in accordance with the editorial standards of specific editorial offices and scientific publications.
Best wishes
Replication is a legitimate approach to doing research and its main objective is confirmatory validating and approving the lines of research from the past. However, some types of research are exploratory and innovative rather than imitative. Many of the prestigious journals use innovation as an index for accepting and rejecting papers.
I’m a reviewer for numerous journals, an editor of a journal and on the editorial review board of two journals (not including the journal for which I’m an editor). Journals have different criteria, cultures and audiences. It’s important to be familiar with that when submitting a manuscript. It is also important to know what has recently been published in a journal. For some journals, a new manuscript may be another “me too”. In which case the journal may not want to use precious publication space on it. For another journal, it may be a totally new area. Acceptance also depends on the number and qualifications of the reviewers. This is a complicated area. You may have reviewers who aren’t familiar with a topic and may not see it’s worth. I think this is not the norm however. You may have the opposite extreme and have reviewers who are experts in the field and are more demanding since they know the in’s and out‘s of a topic and can read between the lines when something isn’t quite right. This I feel is more often the norm. On the other hand, I‘be seen some fellow reviewers’ comments that were inconsequential and one gets the sense that they are just on an review board to “pad” their CV, especially if they are in academia or that they did not devote much time to their review. Just wanted to share my insights from the publishing world.....
Dear Donna Lisi , Thank you so much for the valuable feedback. Yes, that's indeed the case.
Dear Reza Biria , Thank you. The prestigious journal actually rejected the article because it was not similar to what they usually work on developing in their journal. My initial idea was that they were going to accept it since it is new for them but it turned out to be the other way round!
Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz , true.
Academia is cruel. It is full of frustrations and impediments. Yet it is this that pushes researchers to raise their own standards and keep upgrading their research skills, I believe! Diligence is the key word.
Dean Whitehead , I know, but this is too much when you have worked on a project in which you invested a really long time, consulted many experts and about which you're passionate.
You feel those guys are missing a great opportunity! However, you are rejected!
Thanks
Muthana - I appreciate your frustration and commitment to your work - but that's the 'subjective' view on the matter. It remains what it is - and is unlikely to change any time soon. I always say to my colleagues and peers that publishing 'is a game'. You've got to test it, play with it, learn the 'rules' and work around them.
Thanks, Dean. Yes, it's a game. That's what it is. My setting is impoverished in academic training. After a stint at a US university my perspective was changed and I realized there is much to learn about this game of publishing and that you should play the rules and work around them as you say. I watched hours of training videos, read, asked questions, hunted down workshops. It came in slowly to me.
Am I even close? Do we ever in academia get "there"?
Probably it is the journey rather than the destination that matters.
Thank you everyone for your comments.
Pritam, thanks. I really don't know, may be you're right! However, I would rather reinvent the wheel. There is an absurd pleasure in having a fresh attitude towards old familiar stuff. May be it's a disease that keeps one back? Whatever... I enjoy it.
Regardless of journal policies for rejecting or accepting a paper, both replication and innovation play a pivotal role in the development of scientific knowledge. While replication is mostly confirmatory, innovative research is exploratory. Generally speaking , innovative, exploratory research is more prestigious since it draws on the personal insights of the researcher and it usually contributes to the discipline under scrutiny.
Article Innovation and Imitation as Sources of Sustainable Competiti...
Thanks for your discussion Muthana Makki Mohammedali sir. i got some info from this article when i read your query.
Write for what YOU think - not for what THEY think; they will not know what they missed until they no longer have access to your writings.
Lou
Kindly check https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article
Also check https://www.biosciencewriters.com/Why-My-Manuscript-was-Rejected-and-What-can-I-do-about-it.aspx
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking