It all depends on the reason for rejection. Sometimes the first choice of journal wasn't the most appropriate, sometimes there are flaws that the referee points out which need to be addressed, and sometimes you just get unlucky and get bad or unfriendly referees. So the most important thing is to determine why it was rejected, and then do your best address that. Of course, whatever the reason for rejection, you should take advantage of whatever feedback you get to improve the manuscript before submitting elsewhere.

It all depends on the reason for rejection. Sometimes the first choice of journal wasn't the most appropriate, sometimes there are flaws that the referee points out which need to be addressed, and sometimes you just get unlucky and get bad or unfriendly referees. So the most important thing is to determine why it was rejected, and then do your best address that. Of course, whatever the reason for rejection, you should take advantage of whatever feedback you get to improve the manuscript before submitting elsewhere.

First you should try to improve your paper. There are many reasons why papers could be rejected: format, topic, novelty explanation, style, etc. See http://fr.slideshare.net/lichtfouse/scientific-writing-for-impact-factor-journals

All of the above answers are spot on - The most common reason for rejection however, is a lack of preparation. We all want to submit to a prestige journal, but your success depends on how careful you are in your preparation (barring the element that your reviewer simply gets out of the wrong side of the bed). Be honest with yourself - is your work as good as you want them to believe - does it fit the scope of the target journal - have you expressed yourself clearly and in the full context of your field - have you really said something ... new? Another reason for rejection, is that your paper is so narrow or specific (see negative results discussions), that it cannot be applied to a more general setting ... so who else can gain / infer from it?

The 7 'Ps': Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents a Pretty Poor Performance (I have toned down my army vernacular) ;-)

Salam Ali,

I think it is better to read the reviewers' comments carefully, then start to read your paper thoroughly. Usually, this time you will find the weak points of your work easily. To select a journal we must consider many details that editor's taste is of most importance. You can find it by looking at the recently accepted papers in that journal. Be careful to amend the paper before submission to another journal, since some of the reviewers are engaged by different journals. So, it is possible that the same reviewer will be invited to review your paper by the other journal.

First of all, although I'm relatively new to RG ( but have answered around 200 questions), I would like to comment that this is the first time that I've agreed with the contribution of all authors in the strand. It is mostly very sound advice being offered here. I'm voting all contributors up so far. Personally, I've little to add other than 'rejection' by a leading, quality journal may not equate to rejection in another 'lesser' journal. You still have to do your 'homework' and work out what is the scope, house-style etc of the latest journal you intend to submit to - and make any suggested changes that correlate to that circumstance - but it needn't mean 'wholesale' change from the original reviewers for any resubmission; it's the 'art' of tailoring appropriately

It is good to overcome the disappointment and try to find out the reasons for refusal . The paper could be outside the theme of the journal , or it lacks of references , or it require more analysis or it is written in a bad style ...etc . It is better to try to benefit from these remarks and make changes or rewrite the paper or add data or analysis . It is regulation in some departments to allow for 3 trials after which the paper will not be submitted by the department at all . All correspondence with journals is done through the department and all remarks are known by the scientific committee in it . So every thing is transparent .

thank you all, I totally agree with Dean Whitehead, I also voted all contributors up. I have 7 papers under review and two already got rejected !! but it was a complete privilege for me to got rejected from some journals which have very high impact factors such as MISQ and European Journal of Information System.

I always consider the reviewers' feedback; if it makes sense of course; before submitting to a new journal !!

Saad - I like the concept of your 'scientific committee'. Many authors (especially if they are the project lead or sole author) will persevere, on their own, to adapt and resubmit manuscripts until they are either accepted or 'fatigue' sets in. This can be a lonely journal - and a tiring and frustrating one. A scientific committee would help to reduce that burden and help decide more objectively when 'enough is enough'.

Ali - thanks fro the agreement. I also like your 'can do' spirit. Like you - I often have several manuscripts 'out there' awaiting review. If early ones get rejected, it tends to have an effect on me thinking that they will all get rejected - but that is rarely the case. It's probably better that way than having early ones accepted - and the rest rejected in my mind

I remember when my first paper got rejected, I was still a phd student at that time. I couldn't sleep for 3 days, and after that my supervisor called me for an urgent meeting. He told me that its part of the research and sometimes the best in the area got rejected. Well, now i feel sad for a while, then try to work on the reviewers' feedback and submit it to a different journal.

After each rejection, your next version is in an better shape. The peer comments are rarely completely undeserved. The best papers are those that have been rejected by one or more journals before. This have even been empirically demonstrated (but I do not remember the reference, unfortumately).

I just got an email that one of my submitted manuscripts has been accepted. Of course unlike Dean, my paper got accepted with revision :)

I agree with you Peter, the more feedback and comments you got from the reviewers the better. But at the end of the day, nobody wants his/her paper to be rejected !!

Ali - I agree completely. Nobody wants rejection as a first option, but all too often, we have well-intended colleagues that tell you how 'interesting' or 'good' a paper is, only to have it come back bruised and bleeding from the reviewers :-(

In this instance it gives you a chance to re-shape the paper, probably with better results. Just because a paper gets accepted straight away however, it doesn't mean that it has undergone lesser peer review .... it might just be very good for its target audience :-)

Hi, I agree that rejection is disappointing and frustrating, but we should not let that stop us from taking the comments very seriously and revise the manuscript for re-submission. We also appreciate the time and the efforts spent by the reviewers in reading the submission. However, some comments do not make much sense, we have to prepare a good response.

Ali Ismail Awad: This is a very good point. Personally, I always have to take a step back from the initial reviewer comments, in order to view than objectively, as opposed to emotionally. Quite often (to be frank), we get comments and observations that clearly demonstrate that the reviewer is not an expert in this area, and that their expressed opinions are subjective, and do not follow the available evidence. Thus, the quality and tone of your response is an important issue. I will always rebut comments that lack substance or reason, but this has to be done with care. One think I do think about is whether the reviewers reaction was the fault of my own writing (e.g. clarity, depth of information, focus, etc.), or whether they are being deficient in some way. However, I feel the thought process in either case helps to improve the final product.

I don't know, but I almost wish that there was an option in every journal to publish work for post-publication review, especially when the journal may find it difficult to find expert reviewers. At least this way, your potentially good research doesn't just get rejected because of unfounded or ill-informed opinion, and that any post-publication review will be both transparent and attributable. I don't know about others, but even on a professional social-media site such as RG or FB, I always think carefully before commenting, and am prepared to back any statements with best-available evidence. As with post-publication review (as also with e.g. book reviews), these comments are permanently out there and public, so they need much more care before they are submitted.

I think peer-review is basically honest, but I sometimes wonder if the 'blind' aspects make it easier to offer unfounded / less-though out comments? Sometimes, journal editors (themselves not expert) will just take reviewer comments at face value. It is convenient and superficially justifiable, but I am not sure there isn't a better way in this modern day and age.

In spite of the rejection, treat the reviewers comments as gold dust and do all changes to your manuscript that help to improve it.

Then brush of the negative experience and submit it to a different journal.

As an author and reviewer not all rejections are justified. certain elements in a manuscript must be there: research question, clear objectives, research gaps addressed, adequate theory review, clear model or hypotheses, research methodology and a good conclusion section.

Look at the journal contents and see if your approach is right. This will avoid the first step: editor rejection. The rest is pure luck!!