The journal asked to please provide any relevant details regarding your previously considered manuscript (e.g., Editor’s name, manuscript ID, etc.) and to describe changes made to, and the rationale for reconsideration of the manuscript in your cover letter. Do you supply them with the information or just omit? Why would they ask this?
It is better to be honest about it as this may come out anyway (e.g. the same person will be elected to review your article). Some journal editors are not interested in articles that have been rejected several times already, some do not like the idea that their journal is your 10th choice, but, in principle, even if it is so, they want to be sure that you have corrected all the mistakes (e.g. language problems, methodological errors...) that had caused the article's previous rejections: otherwise you may be just wasting your and their time.
Yes. This information to be supplied without fail. This will help the reviewer to evaluate the content critically on what changes made than the original one and in turn will help the author to get quality comments from the reviewer for improvements / further modification. Hence ultimately quality of the research output will improve.
Are researchers honest? Being silent about previous submissions is being dishonest.
The Editors has correctly asked, because the Journal does not want to waste effort to consider a paper that has been rejected elsewhere and
not improved.
I think some of these should be treated as confidential information. Giving them certain details could be regarded as a breach of confidentiality, a confidentiality which protect the author of the ms and not the editor or the reviewers. Let me explain: I think i have the right to a "tabula rasa" with each and every submission and disclosing the details about my manuscript being rejected by this or that journal, or editor or reviewer can lessen my chances for an unbiased new peer review process.
What i would do in case of an editor asking from me sthing similar is copying the anonymised text of the previous reviews/editorial leters to a file and highlighting the changes i made in the ms referring to their comments or criticism. But i would be reluctant to gave them either the manuscript ID or the name the journal, the editor, or (in case of an open peer review) the reviewers. The latter information is redundant when evaluating my response to previous criticism, suggestions for improvement etc. while at the same time can be the source of many bias.
Also authors often submit their ms strategically, starting with top journals and going down and down gradually after rejections. A ms which was not found worthy for publication in a Tier1/Q1 can be accepted without improvements in lower tiers, as often it is the case.
It is very common that manuscripts do get rejected for the first time. Many authors do like to revise the ms according to the comments or the recommendation of the reviewers and taking into account the scope and the requirements of the next targeted journal. To that journal, it is a new manuscript.and they have no problem if the manuscript was earlier rejected or not. Even if the reviewer is the same person who first rejected it. He or she is supposed to review the ms as new and according to the current journal's manuscript submission requirements. I occasionally receive papers for review. One of the questions the editor asks the reviewers is to check whether he or she has any objections, if the ms is rejected and the editor decides to forward it to another journal with the reviewer's comments.
What is not acceptable to the editors is if you submit the manuscript to more than one journal at the same time
Thanks for the input. For example if my ms has been turned down by a journal for "lack of novelty" by the Editor. should I at my submission to other journal, when asked to provide information on previous submission, state that "it was rejected due to lack of novelty"?. I am worried if the current journal Editor might have a "bad impression" on my ms. What is your thoughts?
Yes, and in your covering letter, you should point out how and where you have addressed the shortcomings identified.
First, it is important to take feedback from prior reviews seriously and address the concerns raised.
You should respond honestly and indicate why the manuscript was rejected; in this example, lack of novelty. You then describe additions and edits to the manuscript that address the identified flaw or flaws, in this case you would indicate how it contributes to the literature. You can also address or highlight aspects of the manuscript that have been strengthened in your cover letter, without addressing prior reviews or rejections.
If asked, you have to provide the information. However, many journals do not ask.
Usually "lack of novelty" means go back to the drawing board and replan and research properly next time. It is the strongest rebuttal that a polite referee is allowed to give to a paper and therefore should be taken very seriously.
It is a new manuscript for the new journal. I was never asked by any editor whether your manuscript was earlier rejected by other journals. However, if you send the ms to the same journal that rejected it earlier and they did not ask you to revise and resubmit i, you should not send the ms to them the second time even if you have revised it. If you do that than they have a right to ask this question.
Thanks all for the advice. Appreciate it. Some journals do ask as early in the online submission portal, some just take any MS as new ones. I learn that if asked, responding honestly is the key.
I believe that there are very few journals which are concerned about the paper what you have submitted is either a fresh submission or is being rejected by some journals. Most of the journals decide the acceptance/rejection of paper considering as a fresh submission. But as you asked, if some particular journal asking about the previous submission history then better to tell the truth and submit the revised manuscript based on the comments of rejected journals editor/reviews'.
Be absolutely transparent and honest. All other ways are scientifically dangerous, suspicious, and fully unacceptable.
I think that you should be honest and clear in the answers of all questions asked by the journal publisher. Some journals consider their publication to be the first time publishing and they have the right to know.
well, if Editor had a background to ask, then your "No" will have lethal consequences... to your ms.
If not - I never was asked this question, so my question is "Why do you think you got such question"?
Sometimes having an article accepted is a matter of journal fit--and occasionally that takes a while to figure out--especially if you are working in an interdisciplinary science. Journals I've submitted to have never asked this question, but if asked--transparency is essential to academic integrity.
I fully agree with the last colleagues. We must me honest and tell the true.
Linda, but life is such - you should rut through a list, if first (second, thrd, fourth) try is unsuccessful. I am happy, the only paper of mine was rejected by three jourmals - the fourth accepted it, but the most curious thong was, that x..th reviwer asked to add text, whoch was suggested tp remove by b...th rewiever. The last version of the paper was very similar to the first one - rejected by the editor (or subject editor, is there a difference). But I was never asked, is this a first submission or not.
Do not give up, try to get good reviews, improve your manuscript. And then submit again. There are plenty of journals. You may try this journal, for example: http://www.forestecosyst.com (first read the editorial to find out if your research is relevant to the aims and scope). They won't ask you such a question.
Hi, I think you have to tell them if your manuscript was submitted in other journals or being considered by other journals. As to the details of your submission, I think it is not necessary to supply these pieces of information. I am not just sure if there are confidentiality issues to such requirements.
Now I am asked to add also reviews from the former submission, and my answers? No problems - this is helpful,
I have experienced such before and was told to attach the review if yes. That I did.
SImply, take the advantage without being dishonest. You don"t have to explicitly mention your earlier effort/s. In the worse case, even the ms goes to the same reviewier, ususally, there has already been significant changes that deserves for re-reviewing genueinely. In the case if one is explicly asked, certainly, s/he should say honestly "yes" but will have chance to explain about the earlier comments and responses and your own belief and thought.
As a researcher, be honest, transparent and accountable to your research, manuscript submitted, rejections and kind of reviewers' comments on your paper. Journal Editor may want to know how far changes have been made and where your current article stands in terms of quality.
Many journal editors may not be interested in articles that have been rejected several times. However, when you are asked to furnish these information, it is likely that editor is interested in your work and need clarification to support his/her decision. Therefore, honestly share the details and make necessary changes in the article.
Best Wishes,
Apurva
A scientist is one of the most respectful professionals. Any lie can not only harm your reputation but it could ruin the reputation of all other scientist as well. I always tell my students to be 100 percent honest even if you feel it will go against you and your article will be rejected. You may get a rejection but in a long run you will win the respect and recognition as a repuatable scientist.
@Kofi Agekyem, if you submitted the particular paper to only one journal, the answer is no.
I also agree with Luisa, the contrary behaviour is a mistake and an absurd
All this talk about honesty is nonsense! One must, in principle, be honest, of course. But in this case asking such a question is not just arrogance, it is frank stupidity. When you go to a doctor, s/he will not, and must not, ask you whether you previously saw another doctor/other doctors! This is irrelevant! The doctor you are visiting must solve your problem - whatever other doctors may have found! The reasoning here is based on the assumption that researchers are, as a rule, begging journals: "Oh, please, accept my article!" NO! This is a tango where there are two parties - and each must be good. This is a free market where selling/buying happens if both seller and buyer do their best and offer and require quality! The contributor may be incompetent - or highly competent, just like journals' editors and reviewers may be incompetent or highly competent. I know I am competent in a couple of fields - and when I submit an article I expect the journal's editors and reviewers to be competent enough - to at least understand what I am saying. They are not, very often! Recently I had to submit a very good article to more than a dozen of journals until it got published. The rejections were mainly extremely incompetent, some even stupid. The ~15th journal not only published my article, two of the reviewers stated (precise quotes): "the research under review is characterized by its original character and novelty; the paper is a highly valuable contribution; overall, this is a very good piece of work". If a journal asks you whether you submitted to another journal/other journals, tell them that you expect from them a correct assessment of your work, not questions that are totally irrelevant to the case!
Krasimir - I agree. Everytime I go for a treadmill stress test for my heart, the technician asks me if I have had any problem before. Without fail he records it in his observation for the current test as well.
Ashok Kumar Varadarajan, you will probably also agree that the treadmill technician doesn't want anybody to suffer a heart attack during the test. Hence he MUST ask. Journal editors need not.
I don't believe any respectable journal should ask such questions. However, depending on the circumstances surrounding your publication efforts in improving your manuscript, I would probably answer politely (and with minimal specific information) but only if I thought a favorable decision of the current potential publisher hung in the balance.
Recommended post dear B.E. White , I do agree with your kind point of view sir.
Regards,
Emad
Interesting discussion in here. I don't think such question is necessary but I answer no and sometimes yes as the case might be.
I think honesty and truthfulness are the best policies. If such is the case we should say the truth and the reason behind it
It is always prudent and ethical to answer honestly. If earlier rejection has been based on requested "corrections" in certain areas of the manuscript, and if they have been done because the author is able to determine that such corrections improve the content, I would suggest that honesty is essential in response to this question. And some journals do make this inquiry to protect their policy of original content.
If asked, you have to provide the information. However, many journals do not ask.
I do agree that honesty is the best policy. However, if the manuscript was rejected outright, e.g. not in line with journal policy or style, surely it could and should be accepted by another journal that is more relevant or with less restrictions. Chances are that the resubmitted article may receive minor corrections before final acceptance. I found guidance to journal reviewers helpful in understanding how the reviewing process/ assessment procedure works.
Some times, they use this information to know if it was been previously rejected
I have never been asked this question, and I think if I were asked such a question I might withdraw my article from consideration. This is intrusion into my privacy. A good journal would take a paper that was submitted according to their guidelines as a fresh submission and give it the quality check that it deserves without wanting to know if other journals have considered it. As an editor of a prominent journal of West African linguistics and a series editor of a prominent series in African Linguistics I will not ask people who submitted to me whether they have been rejected by other journals or book series! This is not a relevant question, and journal and book series editors who do this are being unethical themselves in prying into the privacy of would-be published authors!
Rejection is a painful experience and I do not think journals should encourage this kind of questions by reminding authors of what they went through upon receiving the news that their paper is rejected. About 90% of authors will revise their manuscripts before resubmitting and the manuscript should be treated as an entirely new research.
A journal with such policy should be ready to let authors know the reason behind the questions so people can decide if they want to continue with the submition or not.
Honesty should be the only policy. If you do anything else you will forever lose your credibility. Having said that, I have never been asked by any editor if the proposed article had been rejected anywhere else.
Withdraw the paper if that question gets asked. But I've never been asked such a question!
Haven't we had enough advice on this? Here's another question to retire!
Honesty, honesty, honesty. It is wise to respond if there is such a question. Many of the resubmitted articles are more likely to benefit from improvements made following the rejection. So, I think there is nothing to worry about the question as longer as the reasons are rightly provided. Some of the most common reasons include improper formating and not falling within the journals' scope. Why should someone be worried of talking about past rejections.
You should use it in your advantage. Clearly explaining the points raised by the reviewers and how the paper improved with their feedback.
Usually, this question is asked if you submit the same paper to the same journal that have rejected the paper before
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication