Hi, Rouhalah,
I review regularly for several journals, and I would agree completely with everything Linda has suggested. The first thing I do when reviewing a manuscript is to turn to the reference list and review it for conformity to APA style (the standard in my discipline). I know my work is cut out for me when more than half of the sources are incorrectly listed. What I am saying is that attention to every detail is quite important to reviewers.
Attention to details alone will not get a manuscript accepted, but reviewers tend to respect the effort. Do not expect meaningful feedback from reviewers if you have not given your best effort in the preparation of the manuscript. I know it sounds cruel, but sloppy work is likely to receive a sloppy review. Researchers who have been successfully published have learned to appreciate a critical review of their work, even if it is rejected, because a critical review provides the feedback necessary for eventual success.
The next most common issue in a rejection is the failure to answer the "so what?" question. Make sure that the findings are presented in a way that highlights how they make a meaningful contribution to the literature. You would not believe how many manuscripts I have reviewed that effectively undermine the meaningfulness of the findings by showing in their own literature review that this particular project was unnecessary. Statistical significance for quantitative findings is not sufficient in itself. Make sure that the findings are both meaningful and new.
Meaningfulness and newness are particularly important if you are utilizing a qualitative design. I know this is painful news for qualitative researchers, but I see too many manuscripts that develop themes that are disconnected from theoretical meaning, innovative insights, or depth of meaning.
Finally, never give up on a manuscript you believe in. Revise if you must, but resubmit it - and good luck!
And isn't that the question we would all love to know the answer to :P
-following with interest-
Hi, Rouhalah,
I review regularly for several journals, and I would agree completely with everything Linda has suggested. The first thing I do when reviewing a manuscript is to turn to the reference list and review it for conformity to APA style (the standard in my discipline). I know my work is cut out for me when more than half of the sources are incorrectly listed. What I am saying is that attention to every detail is quite important to reviewers.
Attention to details alone will not get a manuscript accepted, but reviewers tend to respect the effort. Do not expect meaningful feedback from reviewers if you have not given your best effort in the preparation of the manuscript. I know it sounds cruel, but sloppy work is likely to receive a sloppy review. Researchers who have been successfully published have learned to appreciate a critical review of their work, even if it is rejected, because a critical review provides the feedback necessary for eventual success.
The next most common issue in a rejection is the failure to answer the "so what?" question. Make sure that the findings are presented in a way that highlights how they make a meaningful contribution to the literature. You would not believe how many manuscripts I have reviewed that effectively undermine the meaningfulness of the findings by showing in their own literature review that this particular project was unnecessary. Statistical significance for quantitative findings is not sufficient in itself. Make sure that the findings are both meaningful and new.
Meaningfulness and newness are particularly important if you are utilizing a qualitative design. I know this is painful news for qualitative researchers, but I see too many manuscripts that develop themes that are disconnected from theoretical meaning, innovative insights, or depth of meaning.
Finally, never give up on a manuscript you believe in. Revise if you must, but resubmit it - and good luck!
Dear Rouhalah,
You ask the following: What steps should be followed during a manuscript preparation to avoid its rejection in a peer review process? As I see it, there is no standard answer to your question.
When I prepare a manuscript to submit for publication I do the following:
1) I think of the most appropriate Journal to submit my manuscript;
2) I read the instructions to authors such that the manuscript is in accordance with them;
3) I write it, say, in a clear and clean manner, such that the manuscript is easily readable and avoids redundancy;
4) I make a selective review of the literature related to the topict at issue.
5) I wonder whether I am saying anything new and original (this is highly important. A way to judge this consists in asking if the mansucript raises, say, a "irritating" question or doubt, that is, a question whose answer advances knowledge or leads us to a better knowledge of the unknown;
6) I try to have an appropriate experimental design, that is, a design consistent with the main goals and hypotheses at hand (if the manuscript reports an emprical research);
7) I try to present empirical data in appropriate Tables, Figures, or Graphs, and perform the desirable statistical analyses.
8) I discuss the findings taking into account the goals and hypohteses at hand and relate them to previous findings on the topic at issue.
9) I always include a Conclusion section wherein I stress the main findings of the study, point to some of its limitations (if they exist), I suggest examples for future research.
10) In the final references section I include all the references that appear in body of the test.
I review regularly for several prestigious journals. While doing this, I take into account the above mentioned criteria or steps. Think that it is rare for a manuscript to be accepted at the first round, and a second or even a third revision is often the case. Try to write a manuscript, be it empirical or only theoretical, that is innovative and meaningful. As a reviewer, I generally see if this is the case in the Introduction section, which I consider the most important section in a manuscript.
Of course, this is a short answer to your question. Even so, I hope it helps.
Besr regards,
Orlando
If the manuscript has reached this level of acceptance, an editor paid for by authors is needed. I do not believe many manuscripts are rejected at this level of acceptance.
Most rejections occur much earlier and are rejected on the basis of problems with the content of the authors' ideas.
Every journal has its own formal standards, therefore it is useful to read the notes for authors. Clear identification of the latest state of theory in the relevant research field (the latest publications must be taken into account); comprehensible derivation of the research hypothesis. Clear presentation of the research method, clear answer to the hypothesis after the research task has been carried out; critical discussion of the results. I cannot imagine that a study will be rejected if such normal standards are used.
To avoid manuscript rejection, you must ensure the following:
- ensure the article is within the scope of the journal before submission
- journal style must be followed to the latter.
- avoid plagiarism and keep the similarity level as low as possible.
Rejection of papers happen mainly based on the comments of the reviewers. Reviewers are supposed to critically go through the methods used, reliability of the work, its originality, and make comments. Often, journals provide a checklist for proper reviewing. Some examples of the type of questions put to the referees are:
1. Does the article come under the subject area of this particular journal?
2. Does the article contain original work or is it a repetition?
3. Is the title clear, concise, and effective?
4. Is it scientifically reliable—including the ethical and statistical aspects?
5. Are the experimental methods used are adequate?
6. Are the interpretations of results and discussion in conformity with relevant facts?
7. Is the style of writing and use of English appropriate for the journal?
8. Is the abstract comprehensive and concise?
9. Comments on the quality of illustrations /photographs
10. Does the manuscript conform to the journal’s requirements as indicated in the “Instruction to authors”
Make certain that your article has affirmative answers to these questions, and if so, I am sure, you can expect an acceptance letter! .
Hi Rouholah To Avoid Rejection of the Manuscript Paper in Peer Review Process following Important Points should be considered:
1. First the Author should Follow the Journal Guidelines Strictly for example Number of word count on single page and number of Pages also the Letter Style others.
2. Author should Provide their Best of their out put for the Manuscript submission. The Research should be Excellent quality and very well presented in the Paper.
3. Avoid Less Similarity with other Articles or Plagiarism.
4. Address the Research Question and clear Methodology Methods Discussion and Results.
5. Journals with High IF Impact Factor and High Index has more Rejection rate so either write an Excellent Paper otherwise look for Low Impact Factor or No IF Journals which are easy to Publish Papers.
I am hoping it would help, Regards
Dear Rouholah Ashiri,
Please have a look at these links and PDF attachment.
http://getpublished.co/tips-to-avoid-rejection/
https://www3.nd.edu/~pkamat/pdf/researchpaper.pdf
https://economics.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bxs876/f/Lucey%202015%20No%20Reject.pdf
Good luck!
Greetings,
you need solid data, proper and strong related methods, as well as the discussion part which answers your research question or find key strategies.....even if your paper rejected don't be depressed ....the reviewer comments will provide you how you can improve your paper quality to reach the success.
Good luck.
To all these answers I would add that luck Is necessary....
Very informative discussion. I completely agree with Dr. Jelena B Popović-Djordjević!
My opinion. DO YOUR BEST and review your work with a friend in the field. If there is possibility.
1) Make sure that your manuscript is in scope of the journal; 2) the language is correct; 3) all the regulations for formatting the manuscript are according to the journal guidelines.
My best piece of advice is to submit without any errors--it needs to be perfect.
What a great thread! Through responses as well :) Once I have established my research question, ran my analyses, and determined my findings, I find an appropriate audience/journal. I review their author guidelines, find a similar paper to follow as a guide, and adhere to their guidelines (formatting, structure, references, tables/figures, etc.). Then when complete, wait a few days, review once more, submit, and work on something else until I hear back. Once I get the feedback, I read it and put it away for like a week, then come back to it and determine what I can fix, what I can't fix, and begin working on the revisions (following previously mentioned steps) and response to reviewers/editor. Finally, I repeat as much as necessary until published. Happy writing!
Mostly it depends on the way the author answers the opposite comments. It is highly recommended to reply politely and explain in adequate details when you are disagree.
Editors of academic journals often mention three reasons for why a paper might be desk rejected (i.e. turned away before external peer review). One is scope (the paper is not the right “fit” for the journal); another is content (it’s just not good enough). The third, however, is language: poor manuscript language can tip a balance into the negative...
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/authors-update/how-two-insure-your-on-track-four-publication-the-importance-of-good-manuscript-language
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication