I have had about 35 yrs working as editor for a scientific journal, I used to send the article for three reviewers, if two of them were of yes or no, the editor should follow those votes unless he realized that there is something wrong or suspected in the results, in that case he shouldn't send the article to reviewers. Regards.
I try to understand the cause of rejects. So, I seek about weak notes in my paper. Ill say hello to another journal.
Look at the comments from those who gave negative reviews. Address them to the best extent possible and then submit it to another journal. There is nothing wrong with that approach and use it as a valuable learning experience.
Dear Medhat Elsahookie thanks for your reply sir.
Well the paper was indeed sent to three reviewers. None of the reviewers reject the paper. The first reviewer said that it has minor contribution to the literature, the second strongly suggested to publish and the third remained neutral and the editor decided to reject. I mean the editor could have given me a second chance.
Dear C. Lewis Kausel thank you for your reply. The comments were mostly in my favor and addressable. I think that this is a biased decision.
Dear Srini Vasan thanks for your recommendation sir. Will focus on that.
Hello Mohammad Razib Hossain
I totally agree with the approach by Srini Vasan - that you should use the information from those comments to modify your paper. I would not let that discourage me overall an I would aim to submit that paper to another journal as soon as possible. If you are like me, you might end up working more on another paper or project straight away - but you really have to remember how much time and effort you have put into the first one already.
You are most welcome dear Mohammad Razib Hossain
Wish you the best always.
We probably can't discuss the problem with the editor,so the only way left for us is: we check another journal. Regards.
Good morning
Send your article to another journal
Best regards
Ph.D. Ingrid del Valle García Carreno
You will be able to learn from the reasons for the rejection and, if necessary, correct the work and present it in another newspaper.
well, keeping in mind all the reviews and rejection reason, you must improve the weak areas of the paper and then try to summit any other suitable journal of your field.
Dear Shahid Hussain thanks for your reply. Will it be a wise decision to resubmit it to the same journal after modifications?
Dear Ingrid Del Valle García Carreño thanks for your reply. Can I resubmit it to the same journal after modifications as this journal has high IF.
I also think that you could yet try to improve the quality of your paper by taking into account the most relevant feedback from the second reviewer. After that you could submit the paper to another good journal. Sometimes, editors' decision can be reject but still they can give an option to resubmission (after the revisions have been done). But if the editor in your case has not told about the option for resubmission, you have to find a new journal.
It is an overall improvement in your research by highlighting your weaknesses and strengths. Anyhow, I will recommend that improve the paper in the light of the given suggestions, and try to find some other journal being more enthusiastic.
In the case of equal positive and negative results To mitigate this issue, more than two groups should be considered, for example considering a positive score from 3 out of 5 people
Dear Tawatchai - Ramkongmuang thank you for your response. In my case, two people out of three suggested positive reviews and one with a negative review. However he did not reject it either. Then how come the editor reject it?
In such circumstance, one can take note of the given suggestions which surfaces from the negative review and improve the paper likewise. If the said journal is open to resubmission then it can be tried, else the revised paper can be submitted to another suitable journal and hope for the best!!!
Dear Anindya Basu thank you mam for your suggestions. Will do that.
No way, take it easy and submit it to another journal. You'd better address the reviewers' comments if you feel they are convincing and would improve the manuscript.
I absolutely concur with Anindya Basu. If I were in this situation, I would do the same.
Work on Error sheet which give by one reviewer because if this will be genuine errors so your will be not be accepted by another jounals too.
I had this recently, one positive review, one with a lot of low-level nit-picking (which I do appreciate - apart from the rejection it encouraged). On the basis of the feedback of reviewer one that the paper made a substantial contribution to the literature, I contacted the editor and mentioned that reviewer two's comments mainly focused on small mistakes in the text (some of which I disagreed with) and thus, the substantive elements of the paper were strong as reviewer one said.
The editor offered to send it out for review again, so I responded to the rejection feedback and submitted it again. I just got it back with a revise result. Again reviewer one is positive and reviewer two is asking for a different study in a different research paradigm. Talked to the editor again about ignoring reviewer two's suggestions that the study should be quantitative and not qualitative and he agreed that would be a sensible approach. I thus aim to respond to the comments I can respond to without changing my fundamental approach to the article.
If you are confident in the contribution of the article, don't give up. Even if you need to go to a different journal. This one was rejected several times, but I know it is a good article and that it will make a contribution to the broader field. The path of the evolution of a good article is not always as direct as we might want. But articles that have been through several rounds of review get cited more, and researchers who get a near-miss with grant applications go on to do better things in the future spurned on by their failures. This experience may have done you a favour in the long run.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12189-3?fbclid=IwAR2aUUyLbK7w0I_5wFClQu52XZHO6CBzClycyUw7aK1PA3OgQp4PRhMXBj8
Dear James Wood thank you sir for your informative write up. It has definitely inspired me a lot to move further with my research work.
You are welcome. One thing I've learned through my (limited) experience is that although peer review can be very helpful the process is by no means perfect. Authors need to judge whether or not the comments reflect a full understanding of the literature and a full understanding of the paper. Sometimes we need to have more confidence as authors.
Take the good with the bad, edit the paper and resubmit. Hopefully, the negative review came with useful feedback that can be incorporated into the edit. Keep in mind, that some of the reviewers may be outside the discipline and may not understand the content or concepts!
Dear Mohammad Razib Hossain thank you for posting this important technical question which will certainly be of great interest to many other RG members as well. Unfortunately this is a very common situation. It appears that nowadays most editors tend to reject a manuscript when they receive one positive and one negative review. In such a case, more serious editors would send the manuscript to an "adjudicative" reviewer who would then vote in favor of one or the other position. However, this takes more time, and many reviewers do not practice this approach any more.
If I were you, I would make all corrections and additions suggested by the original reviewers and submit the revised manuscript to another journal, perhaps one with an even higher impact factor.
Good luck with your publication and best wishes!
Dear Frank T. Edelmann thank you sir for your instructive comment. The paper was indeed sent to a third reviewer and the third reviewer recommended major corrections. However, finally the editor rejected it.
Dear Mohammad Razib Hossain, thanks for your kind response and explanation. In the case that the editor asked a third reviewer, he/she did everything right. Somehow it is understandable that the editor came to this disappointing conclusion to recommend rejection of the manuscript as in the end the critical points prevailed.
In general, every researcher in the world experiences occasional rejections of scientific manuscripts. This is something a researcher must learn to deal with in a professional manner. Thus my suggestion would be to push aside the negative emotions and proceed as suggested in my first answer. In any case resubmission of the revised manuscript to a different (perhaps even better) journal is a better approach then arguing with the editor of the original journal.
Good luck with your revised manuscript and best wishes!
Dear Frank T. Edelmann thank you so much sir for your comment.
no doubt that editor has rejected the article, however the suggestions provided by both reviewers will refine your work and you can now submit at a better place as compared to previous one.
dear Imran Shafique
thanks for your reply sir. Appreciate it.
Once again go through the paper care fully and correct the negative comments on the second author then resubmit it
Mohammad Razib Hossain, I think, you may work on all the comments suggested by reviewers and go for a new submission to your next preferred journal. All the best !!
Go back through the Editorial guidelines and see if there was something required you did not follow. Journals have specifications that must be followed failure upon which may lead to the rejection. Meanwhile, know at the back of your mind that rejection is not denial. Rather incorporate the corrections suggested and like others have said look for another journal and re-submit. Best of luck!
Just to share, below I've attached the paper that got rejected 3 times by top journals and was finally accepted (after 1 year) by the third journal after I pointed out that in the third rejection one reviewer was very positive about the contribution, while the other mainly offered comments that amounted to proofreading, but because of the quantity, the article was rejected.
Based on the argument in my letter, the editor kindly offered to send the article for review again. I then followed most of the advice in the previous rejection and took another couple of weeks to improve the article and proofread it to a professional standard using Grammarly.
In the fourth review, one reviewer was very positive and the second reviewer suggested that the paper would only have merit if it was a quantitative study, at a much greater scale. The reviewer repeatedly referred to issues of mathematical generalisation etc rather than understanding the aim was a conceptual contribution evidenced by a smaller-scale study, which I made clear in the article.
I quickly replied to the editor and mentioned as it was a qualitative article that I would follow reviewer 1's suggestions but would find it difficult to follow reviewer 2's suggestions about conducting a different broader scale study, and the editor agreed that this would be a reasonable approach.
The paper has now been published, and I believe (as I always have) that it makes a strong contribution to the field. I feel previous reviewers may not have been as knowledgeable about the main gaps in the field as I was, and this (and paradigm misunderstandings) were the main issue in the previous review process.
I wanted to share my experience because I've found that while the review process is very valuable, reviewers are not always experts on the topic of the study, and sometimes make suggestions about what they think would be a better study design rather than comments that can help the study at hand.
As authors, it is our role to negotiate this process, accept the advice that will help us to improve, but also make a polite and logical case for not following the advice that would not help the article to improve, or that reject the article for the unsound reasons. Writing a great article is about exercising our full agency as authors rather than accepting the peer review process as absolutely authoritative. This is also the argument I make in the article that just got published attached below about students' academic writing.
Check out the article: Article Enabling feedback seeking, agency and uptake through dialogi...
Go through the negative points currect and submit to another journal suitable journal
James Wood makes important points--the commentaries offered need to be carefully read. Your response -- sometimes -- can make a difference. But remember, you can't simply disagree and argue for acceptance. You need to clearly outline why the reviewers may be in error. Typically, reviewers are not out to undermine your work, and you should read their reviews as such, but there are moments when you should advocate for yourself. Don't be afraid to defend your work, but also understand that sometimes a "no" is a "no" no matter what you do. There are a lot of journals, you'll find a home for your work.