If you believe it is a very good piece of paper than start to submit top journals, then gradually come down and make it publish elsewhere, DO NOT UPSET and give up. If you give up something “ GIVE UP GIVING UP”

Try to rise the standard of paper then publish where ever you want.

I try to find the reasons for rejecting the research and correcting it if possible. Of course, this process is very difficult, but you must overcome the psychological trauma of rejecting the research.

I didn’t have a great experience of failures in publication. In the same cases, when this was happened, I did two things: 1. I chose another magazine, thinking about it more carefully than the first time, and not listening to the co-authors, if the version proposed by them was implemented already (you were mistaken - now it's my turn). 2. I consistently answer all the questions and comments of opponents, sometimes not accepting them, but on the contrary, aggravating my “incorrect” statements. But it is not possible to disagree with everything, it is necessary to sacrifice something, the opponent should not feel like a complete fool.

"If the paper is rejected because it has not reached the competitive edge of publication" - clearly there is no way to publish it - at list in the Journal you chose for submission. You should re-think and re-work your paper.

If you believe it is a very good piece of paper than start to submit top journals, then gradually come down and make it publish elsewhere, DO NOT UPSET and give up. If you give up something “ GIVE UP GIVING UP”

Thank you from my heart to all replies which i appreciate it

My colleagues اow proud I am of youز

Regards

Boshra

Yes, Dr. Hameda د. حميدة الأعرجي

Very thank you

Boshra

Leonid V Vladimirov

If we succumb and write what people expect from us, but who have not written anything for a long time (or rewrite what they did many years ago), then there will be no progress. In my opinion, it is better to publish 10 erroneous articles (and then reasoned objections to these) than to reject one, but containing something new and unexpected. Even in the stream of delirium (of course I exaggerate) there is a rational grain, and the task of the editor and reviewer is to find it, and maybe even help the author. The author, for his part, must write an article so that even the reviewer understands what it is about, then the readers will understand too. But the position of journal editors looks as if they receive hundreds of ingenious articles, although in fact they publish substantially indisputable and countless variations of the mainstream type.

When my paper is rejected, I remind myself of the fact that good journals reject between 80% to 96% of all manuscripts, many of which do not go beyond the editors' review. My natural reaction is to understand the role of reviewer, which I used to think is that of a villain. Now I know that reviewers have to be critical, with as much objectivity and ethical neutrality as possible. So I almost never give up. Learned from a senior colleague William C Livingood that a good researcher must respect the review, revise, re-submit (to a different journal) till the victory.

Refine, ask for feedback, address flaws, and then try to publish again!

try to submit other journals

Yes I try to publish again

If I agree with the opinion, I improve the content of the work according to the suggestions and observations of the expert reviewers. Once the article has been modified, I send it again to the Editorial Board of the Scientific Journal.

Yes

Good work will publish but difficult for young researcher to cope up so quickly.

Все зависит от причин отклонения статьи и замечаний рецензента. Если статья концептуально не расходится с политикой журнала, то целесообразно исправить замечания. Если замечания носят концептуально характер, то лучше обратиться в другой журнал.

Follow

With corrections and improvement submit to other journal if you are confident about your work,

If after improving the article according to the suggestions of the reviewers, the publication is still rejected and I do not agree with the reasons for the new rejection; Then, I send the work for editorial review to another prestigious Journal.

Paper rejection is a very natural happening in the process of publishing a paper. However, reasons behind rejection are important. When reviewers reject a paper for technical reasons, we should not take it as a tragedy because a rejection is in fact a necessary step in the pursuit of success. By correcting the flaws , We should try again and send the paper to other journals.

I will try again and again to satisfy The journal or another journal with my paper and sometimes I will try to modified my writing style to be qualified publishing in impact factor journals.

Beleive in ur work.

Very nyc thoughts Dr. Emre sir

I think that if my work is worthy and original then I would read the comments of the reviewers and try to do the best to modify the manuscript to be more considerable and acceptable for re-publication.

Yes

I agree totally with Emre reply

Thank you my Colleagues for your replies on my discussion

Regards

Boshra

I totally agree with Dr. Emre Pakdemirli

Without giving up , we need to work to improvise and submit it again . It depends on how strongly we believe in ourselves and our work .

Do not change any thing, simply try another journal.