very good thank you for sharing it, i strongly recommended it

They are sometimes justiified, so that a young researcher without much experience can learn something. Sometimes the "whole thing" does'nt match in the spectrum of the reviewer or the journal.

Honestly, I think that the items for rejection included in the file are more than enough justification to turn down an article as non-publishable. Journals do have policies, and tend to focus on one or an ensemble of features that they want to find in articles: originality of topic, data, and approach; sound methodology, preferably empirical and quantitative; and writing in a sound language and style.

Thank you Dr. Fathy for sharing this file.

Hi,

Several reasons for rejection are justified, for instance, if the article is out of the journal's scope, than naturally it cannot be accepted for publication. There are reasons though that constitute an exaggeration, for instance, the fact that an author repeated existing results, but provided a different angle for the analysis, this is not a good reason for rejection, since a new angle could lead to a a scientific discussion on the subject.

Following.

Although some of the issues are predictable, the systematization provides an overview that helps authors and especially novel authors.

I think this is a good summary and will use it in a researcher development workshop that we have soon for our School of Education. To these reasons, I would add that often authors don't describe their own country's systems or practices well enough for people from other countries to understand. It's certainly a big issue in my field.

I would put the 'lack of originality' section after some of the other sections. Most of the papers that I am sent to review fail one of the other tests!

Thanks Dr. Fathy. It will be a useful guide.

It's a pretty good overview. I would add: (1) over-interpreting of the findings; and (2) use of the wrong study design for the research question. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health had a similar article recently. Worth a look. As an Editor, I get irritated when people submit a paper without having paid any attention to our instructions to authors or even having looked at recent articles to get a feel for what we publish.

Outdated references. My rule of thumb, in reviewing papers, is that half of the referenced should be from the previous five years, to ensure that the most recent theoretical framework is the basis for the current manuscript.

Thanks for sharing this, its a valuable thing for beginners

Thanks for such nice file.

I can Just add that some Journals considered the author of the manuscript and they directly rejected the paper if the author is not well known even sometimes the work is done with heavy contributions.

Useful guide

Very useful link ,, almost all the reasons are covered

I printed this guide for me! It is great to have all these aspects in mind when writing a paper.

In my 1 year experience as a reviewer, I would add:

- Outdated literature review - it is important to have old references but also the new ones. That means that authors really know and highlight all changes and improvements in that field/topic.

- Reference list is different from cited authors (authors of the paper usually forget to write in reference list some of the authors they cited in text or reverse - they write some papers in reference list but not cite them through text)

- Authors forget to write in reference list papers they used for figures and tables in paper

- Authors do not provide the recommendation for future research regarding the topic or recommendation is very poor.

Lack of innovative aspects.

I agree that the subject must be timely and that references reflected are current. Thank you for opening this topic for discussion.

very good thank you for sharing it, i strongly recommended it

Not submitting papers suitable to a journal and not strictly following the submission guidelines.

Very useful link, thank you for sharing it

It shows how easy it is to reject a paper.

lolx on editor anecdote

Dear Abdallah Hussien Fathy and colleagues it is a very interesting and thoughtful topic to discuss. First of all let's be positive about a researcher's effort and the publication of the effort. Now we can consider how to "get through the gate". A well written article on the topic from my readings for you all. Best Regards.

Green, J. P., Tonidandel, S., & Cortina, J. M. (2016). Getting through the gate: Statistical and methodological issues raised in the reviewing process. Organizational research methods, 19(3), 402-432.

For all researchers,

Please refer to this link, it contains related topics about writing a quality research paper

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_I_get_the_Impact_factor_of_a_journal

Regards

Samaa

Abdallah Hussien Fathy, this is very helpful. Here is a really handy checklist to make sure you don't make some of the common mistakes written about in the article: https://www.aclang.com/blog/pre-submission-checklist/

Thank you so much for your share.

Actually, all of the file contents are well known. The problem is in how to evaluate or measure each of them. For example, the novelty. If we take an example, most if not all of the current deep learning techniques are known since 19's.

In my little opinion, so many journals are "occupied". Some stupid editors are selecting papers in strange ways. I had a paper before submitted to some good journal and editor reject to enter it for review. I submitted it to a much better journal, and it has been accepted and selected as the best paper in the journal for a long time. So, I think nowadays, the publication depends in may cases on relations, luck, and may be on the professionality in writing.

Thank you so much.

Thanks for sharing this file. I also agree with the comment of Shaker El-Sappagh

More general reasons

Very useful article

However, I think that sometimes the papers been rejecrted due to vague reasons. Some editors force the authors to cite their work, otherwise the article will be rejected.

Thanks for the insights shared

Many reasons