Miranda, I appreciate your question. I have authored or coauthored many papers over the past 25 years, and have had many rejections. The key here is to persist to put your ideas out there in spite of rejections. If one journal closes the door, revise with whatever feedback you obtained that you consider valid, and go to another journal. Your ideas may simply be ahead of their time or out in a direction that others may not understand. It is also possible that you simply need to reframe your ideas in terms others can better identify with them. I have also served as editor to some journals and have perspective with regard to rejection or more correctly major revisions. Papers from non-native English speakers sometimes require major editing to improve the writing. In some journals editors will return these with rejections leaving an option for resubmission when authors improve the manuscript. Right or wrong the expectation is that authors will be persistent with their papers. The worst situation is where the paper is returned without review as is done in journals where a board of editors prescreen papers. Here we are left guessing how to improve a paper. But the key is to submit elsewhere and push the ideas forward. Some of the papers that were rejected at first, I now consider some of my best work. But I must admit rejection is not painless. We simply must find the stubbornness to move the paper forward regardless of the opposition. Sorry for writing so much, you posted a great question, and I couldn't resist.

Dear Miranda,

Of course, I had more than one paper rejected but I must confess that I've never agreed with such rejection. As to reviewers' comments, some of them were really useful and helped me to improve data presentation and discussion.

Hi Mirinda,

I had my papers rejected quite a few times. I will have to admit, reviewers comment did a world of good to me. They have suggested revisions which of only improved the class of my papers but also helped me grow as a researcher. Three journals rejected my first paper, and each time thanks to reviewers comments, the standard of my manuscript improved. Good reviews go a long way in developing scientific skills and thinking of a researcher. You can learn a lot from such experienced personalities.

The reason for my addiction to researchgate is also the same. Here also you can interact freely with senior scientists and eminent personalities which helps you grow as a researcher and as a person.

But having said that....I need to emphasize that the reviews should be healthy and positive. I have come across a few comments which are very disappointing. Some of the experiments suggested by reviewers are just not practical. One of the reviewers once suggested me to maintain a live adult Sting ray in an aquarium and perform some experiments on it. May be its possible in his lab. In my Lab, to do that is very dangerous. The animal is thrice my size and has a sting as big as a sword. I don't think the animal will leave me alive to report the results. But these are very rare exceptions.

I have also come across some instances where the reviewers comments are positive but even then the editors rejects it...

Regards, Naveen

@ Miranda Yeoh - Whenever I submitted a paper, I must admit that I have the "pro innovation bias" (that is, positive bias) that the paper is a "masterpiece." This positive perspective is good for the author as it develops one's self-esteem. Rejection is always part of the journey. Rejection could be in the form of minor revision, major revision, and outright rejection. In my opinion, it is part of the journey of growing up to think more in-depth.

Naveen: if silly or prejudiced reviews were very rare esceptions in your experience, I may but envy it. However, even such reviews sometime help because they improve my fighting abilities.

I would not wish to repeat the former ResGate discussion on so-called double blind reviewing process - in its framework I told everything I thought an still am thinking about it. As to what Francisco calls outright rejection, something seems to have changed. In the pre-email years the usual Editorial practice was to send you 3 reviews (one applauding your work, one calling it an absolute junk and one telling that it is interesting but needing some revision) plus Editor's decision to... reject it. You see, in this situation it seemed wiser not to risk: what if the 2nd reviewer was right! Now, when an author can react immediately and the Editor sees his(hers) comments on reviewers' comments and appraisals, and then ask reviewer's opinion, and so perhaps on and on/ - and all this takes not so long time, I know some Editors having time for and capable to form their own opinion and make a positive decision, all the reviewer's objection notwithstanding.

The last but not the least: in many fields there are so many journals now that you always can, having been rejected by one of them, try another. If you are rejected again and again, try to think whether your manuscript is not really junk, however bad it is gor your ego.

Rejection is good but if it is without constructive comments then obviously frustration.

Rejection directly from editor's desk or journal is large backlogged are not a good policy.

Research is creative work of the author so rejection sometimes give set back also.

One can not avoid rejection... It is decision of the publisher where one cannot have a chance to defense.

Accept cheerfully and go ahead...

Boris Katsnelson · i have the same experience as what you have cited.:-) One reviewer rated it as good and another rated it as bad. A third might cite a few line as if not knowing how to position himself. In this instance, I wondered. Why did one rate it good and another rate it bad? Is the peer reviewer process really valid? Is it really helpful? The bottom line is for the author himself to have a positive perspective of what he really likes to convey. Even with the good and bad extremes, the journey after the rejection could nevertheless be a good experience to savor.

@Francisco. Hi, please tell us more about 'the journey after the rejection'. I think each one of you will have these true tales to share...who knows it may cheer and encourage others :-)

Dear Francisco, there is an old Russian joke about a gipsy-man who trained his horse to get lesser and still lesser mass of fodder. He was sure that he would made it manage without fodder at all if the stubborn animal would not spoil the experiment by dying. Do you see any semblance to usefulness of being rejected? A good experience indeed..... were it not so deadly.

As to the validity of peer reviewing, may I refer you once more to the special RG discussion around the problem?

@Boris and Francisco...I am in total agreement with both of you. I have experienced it many times. One reviewer says paper is good, one suggests some minor revision and the third one says the paper is flawed and not good. Finally the paper is rejected. There are instances when the paper comes back for revision, all changes are made according to reviewers comments, paper again goes for review and gets rejected without any valid reason.

I seriously doubt, if this current system of review brings the "luck factor" into picture.

@Naveen, I had one such experience. Then it dawned upon me that I am not a regular subscriber of the journal; what can I expect? Till now, I don't get a research grant, no one in my college has got it yet. Most of them don't want to do research, but I must not stop for such a reason.

A good question. My point is that the rejection per se is never beneficial. Its negative impact might be somewhat mitigated if the authors receive reviewers’ comments. However, many journals, especially high impact factor ones, have a tradition of rejecting certain percent of papers without entering the review process. This might be beneficial for the journal if it has plentiful submissions to select from and only limited resources for providing internal and external review. For the author, if the paper is inappropriate for a particular journal, detailed comments regarding the revision and pointing to another better targeted journal could be a real help. Something like that was intended by the project of Rubriq; however, their services are expected to be paid by the authors which is probably unaffordable for those authors who could benefit most.

I would like to expose three reflexions about this topic.

1) New ideas are hard to accept. Remember this quotation by Max Plank (1858-1947).

" An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."

2) Only by falling, people can learn to rise. Remember the following quotations.

"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes, which can be made, in a very narrow field." N. Bohr (1865-1962).

"If error is corrected whenever it is recognised, the path of error is the path of truth."

Hans Reichenbach (1891 - 1953)

3) The most powerfull rejecting machinery is time. Most papers are ignored several decades after their publication. Time is the most implacable referee. However, even time can be wrong in few occasions...

(myself)

Dear friends, it's true that some reviewers made constructive comments. I value those things. But not all of them provided comments were helpful or constructive :( How was your experience for the papers that you submitted? Can you say roughly 50% of the comments were constructive?

Article rejection is part of "the game". It is very frustrating, when it does not come with the appropriate comments. However, it can help autors improve the quality of their articles and reach higher-rated journals. The key element here are the reviewers, which are usually authors too. They must "do their job" and review the article properly, providing authors with relevant and valuable comments. They expect the same "deal" when acting as authors.

@Ahed and Javier. You have said it very accurately, as our other friends also have expressed. We can accept rejection quite well only when we are also given some mental tools for a better re-building process :-)

I can say, it is like a test, you can pass or fail. and by time we face acceptance and rejection. If a paper is accepted without any comments for the first submission I'll be happay but wondering for addation or changes to improve the outlook, it can not be perfect. If it is accepted with minor comments, this is normal and I'll be more happy to carry out the changes given by reviewers and improve it. But if it is rejected with major comments, surely, I'll be very sad due to at least loss of time and feeling of "under-qualified " that means some major errors takenplace in article as methodology ......,

We all have such experince of rejection by time but if it is constrictive, improve the article and the comments add data to literature, I will accepted and work for it.

@Vasile...As you yourself said "we live in different realities". The same applies for reviewers also. Do you believe one could change himself or his presentation style to suit all reviewers?

A rejection can motivate to work harder, and maybe even submit the paper to a better journal (sometimes after taking some arguments in the rejection letter into account).

Dear Miranda:

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"

Certainly, we are talking about quality publications.

The negative opinion of one or more reviewer should not wipe off what one has hardly worked for and for an appreciable amount of time.

Usually, such an event gives the author a rush of adrenaline to ameliorate the research article and come back with a stronger higher-quality paper.

Your question reminds me of an old incidence. Here it is:

A few years back, I was invited by a book author to write a short chapter on "Biomedical Engineering Education". I accepted the invitation and wrote the chapter. After submitting it, I got a request from the book author to have another author added to my chapter - a big name in the field. I declined this request and thereafter I had my chapter rejected... A few years later, I published my "Handbook of Research on Biomedical Engineering Education and Advanced Bioengineering Learning - Interdisciplinary Concepts". URL: http://www.igi-global.com/book/handbook-research-biomedical-engineering-education/58270

Sure, especially when reviewers give good comments and suggestions.

However, when reviewers show a little attention to your paper ("I have no time to check this…") and misunderstand your contribution, or they are not so expert in your field to know at least basic notions, I don't know whether these reviews are useful. I sometimes believe that they give reviews in order to reject your paper because it is better than their ones or because you do not belong to the same "group"…. I experienced such reviews.

@David, agree! There's truth in your assertion. I have come across examples of clannishness in science, indeed , I witnessed such negative developments!

I guess rejection doesnt matter as long as the criticism is judicious are relevent. Unfortunately there are referees, who have certain bais. I give you an example one of my paper recently was not accepted in a high impact well known journal, the comments says a very well written manuscript, dealing with an important issue........But it is of local relevence (since my examples were from Arabian Gulf) the same journal publishes a paper on single core dating from a lake in previous issue?

I have accepted the decision but am forced to believe that this is solely not scientific reason, as there are plently of local baselines published in that journal recently.

I agree with David. Scientifically sound criticism and rejection of a paper is OK, and can be a strong motivation for work on improvement. But you also have referees who will reject your paper simply because of your address ( i.e., you live and work in a country which is " not well seen"). Or you also have referees who insult you (..I see that you know nothing..). Such referees can be bypassed by submitting elsewhere, but it demands additional time..

Miranda,

I understand very well what you mean. But, unfortunately I missed this opportunity of rejection of my paper which I think in terms of methodology was not compatible with theoretical framework in which the problem was analysed. I recall paper was about agricultural crop land use in early seventies when capitalisation or commercialisation of agriculture in north India was in its incipient stage. Then I was you and like all young angry persons with establishment had somewhat leftist world view and paper was written from the Marxist perspective . The chief editors of the journal (the Head of the Department) on receiving referees comments on my joint paper with Fakhruddinn (now associate professor in that very department) called the meeting of the professors of the Department to publish or reject the paper in view of the prevailing situation in the University. Incidentally my first supervisor (under whom I completed my MPhil dissertation) was present in the meeting. He was a religious but open mind individual. His opinion was that paper in itself was good theoretically, but the author had used regression analysis to prove their points, it does not fit in the ideological and theoretical framework of Marxist analysis, if instead of regression model they have used so laboriously collected data in support of their argument, it would had been better. The senior most professor was of the opinion, it did not matter what technique the authors had used, it did matter whether they had done done it successfully and finding from the models confirm their hypotheses based on theoretical framework. After some controversy the paper was published. But, i still think were it rejected as we could improve it according to the suggestion and opinion of my first supervisor as the senior professor who recommended my methodology latter became my second supervisor for Ph.D.

One more, regarding rejection, we have to differentiate between scientific rejection and editorial rejection due to e.g., scope of the journal. Some journals are looking for hot topics which are more cited that increases IF of journal (will have priority for acceptance than others). While if the paper is well written as said by Saif Uddin (above discussion) and scientifically good but related to local relevence. In this matter, the rejection should come from the editorial board but not from the referees after evaluation.

Yes Fathi this is from Editor. But the same editors have approved several other localized studies that forced me to think for reasons.

This is a really good question. In any case where rejection leads to improvement of the scientific work and/or the scientist's set of skills could be marked as a positive event. Early in one's career these things could be very helpful.

I agree that rejection leads to improvement of the scientific work and/or the scientist's set of skills and knowledge about it but only when the reason of rejection is/ are elaborated. Some times the papers are rejected without clearing the reason. This type of rejection only waste time and create frustration among the author/s. So I would like to request the editors/ reviewers that they should properly mention the reason of rejection, so that the researcher could further benefit from it.

@Valdan; I agree with Valdan. Some referees are really harsh on you. Their comments would make you feel that you have committed a big crime by submitting your paper in the journal. I genuinely believe, referees should be polite in their approach.

But there are many referees whose constructive criticism has helped me a lot. As I pointed out in my previous comment they help you grow as a researcher.

@Fathi..Yes editors do reject the paper if they believe the paper is not within the scope of the journal. But we do some homework before submitting a paper. Don't we? There are lot of instances when editors reject your paper on the basis that it out of the Journal's scope even when they have published scores of paper on the same topic.

Dr. Miranda Yeoh,

With my experience, the review comments from a good journal, competent editorial board and knowledgeable / expert reviewer of a rejected scientific article becomes beneficial to the author.

David's experience is not uncommon. That sort of rejection should be seen as a "message" that one ought to try a different journal and to find a group that will be more likely to understand one's ideas. Reworking the more complex explanations so that they are more clearly stated for people who are unacquainted with the points in the paper may often help a great deal. Writing is a difficult task in the best of times, not everyone has the same knowledge 'base' nor do we all have the same educational experiences or points of view.

Yes , it worked out for me. I have submitted in better journal and got published !!.

@Kumar, congrats.

@Michael ,Thank you.

I personally like this question very much. Thanks to Miranda. Scholars are made, not born. We all need advices from others to grow and then to have capability of appreciation of the difference in approaching methods for a research problem. We are authors waiting for acceptance or rejection from the reviewers, and in the same time we are also reviewers giving acceptance or rejection to others. The point is: believe in yourself no matter what. And, also take advantage of these tough questions to your studies.

Cheng: "Scholars are made, not born. We all need advices from others to grow and then to have capability of appreciation of the difference in approaching methods for a research problem"

Very well said.

I believe that a rejected article is not a bad article. What happens here is that the expectations of the evaluators were not met or the requirements of the forum did not satisfy. The arguments for rejection, must be viewed from a constructivist perspective and as a learned lesson for us to improve teaching. However, when an author receives a letter in which he said that his article was not accepted in its current form, but that a second evaluation be accepted if certain changes are made and properly answer the questions raised by the evaluators , we mean exactly that, the article is among those not initially accepted and the probability of acceptance is 50% depending on how you respond to reviewers. The final decision will depend entirely on the quality of the changes and the answers given to the questions raised.

A reviewer's comments is useful if they are well written with specific areas identified that can be improved or needs improvement. I liked those comments that identifies the issues and goes a step further (which is not all the time the case) in explaining how the issues can be addressed. Also, I learn a lot when the editors give the opportunity to rebut certain claims of the reviewers, and finally end with the decision of acceptance (again the latter is a rare instance in my case). The point of frustration is when the manuscript takes more than 6 months to be reviewed, and then a major revision is required, which again goes into another 6 months of review, and then finally gets rejected (rare but happens as well). However, if the revision goes into lengthy process of review, and after further rebuttal, is accepted and then published after another 12 months, it's gives at least some satisfaction. Another frustration is that when the journal says the paper is out of scope, but in fact published similar papers before. Anyways, I guess t would be an interesting question to explore the factors behind getting published in reputable or different journals. Any ideas?

@ Ronald. There are many instances when the journal says the "paper is out of scope" but has published similar papers before. One of the possible reasons is they do not reject papers submitted by people the know. A research scholar once told me that a particular journal (which has a good IF) will not reject his Guide's papers as the editor happens to be a friend of his Guide. These type of practices is a curse to science.

I know many senior scientist (who are also reviewers) are following the thread. I wanted to ask them, can an editor publish a paper even if the reviews from referees are negative? Does referees have a right to question the editor?

Juan-Esteban: "The most powerfull rejecting machinery is time. Most papers are ignored several decades after their publication. Time is the most implacable referee. However, even time can be wrong in few occasions..." It is bad even for The Science and a real tragedy for a scientist even if he/she, unlike me, has got all these decades in reserve.

Dear Naveen and Ronald, Your sentiments are genuine. In the roles of a publisher, an editor, a reviewer and an author after all we are human being and may deviate from high level of ethical values of standard publishing.

@Naveen, Vitaly; you have said it right! BRAVO. Some of us can understand now, why our papers are rejected. The journal should say 'we accept only articles that meet THESE criteria..... (as you have stated).

Rejection of a paper may or may not lead towards improvement, as it all depends on what grounds the paper has been rejected. We have seen many journals summarily rejecting a submission, saying it is " Out of scope of their journal" or "It should be published in some regional journal" while at the same time, they do publish papers having a regional or local perspective and also of inferior quality.

If the rejection is based on quality of research and backed by meaningful comments from the reviewers then improvements in quality are possible. Too much editorial privileges are often seen which discourages not too well known authors to even try to publish in reputed journals.

I strongly feel that every time a paper is rejected, the comments of the reviewers should be also communicated along with rejection, so that the author may try to improve the shortcomings and resubmit it to some other journal.

I think the journals should be more specific while describing their aims and scope. There are many journals which include broad areas, like for example say molecular biology, in their "scope" and when you send a paper they would say that aspect of molecular biology is not within the scope of journal.

@Miranda.....Sorry if I am deviating from the main topic of your thread.

I guess the editors and publishers should also be involved in thisdebate as well. There should be a forum where teh views can be exchanged and anguish be displayed to change the policies. But on the other hand as reviewer I have read several papers from developing countries which I was not able to recommend for publication due to improper expression and writing. I wish if it was properly written could be published. Some times I have read papers which create a doubt on even the basic understanding and data quality.

Like elsevier has started, if we can have services where the expression can be polished the rejection rates for non native speakers can drop down.

Some of the answers point out to a rejection based on who you are and where you're from. I believe this is true as recently I had nicely slid comments showing that they know where I'm from. Also, given the fact that many of the submitted papers were in fact published as conference papers or working papers, I am not sure that the double blind review applies. With a little bit of Google search one is able to find who the reviewers are and even get a more user-friendly version of the paper for review.

One of the key questions to be asked is how to separate the grain from the chaff. That is, to tell from the really bad comments which ones are helpful and which ones are not. Any experiences or opinions to share?

P.S. I do not want to willingly deviate the initial discussion: if one believes that the issue of how to make constructive use of the negative reviews is better served by this thread, I invite him/her to (also) join my discussion.

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

I guess there is at least one unambiguous conclusion that I see through many responses:

- paper rejection with well-written comments is helpful to researchers and fosters his/her skills in presenting a certain material in a way acceptable to others.

Indeed, this admission/rejection process is somewhat similar to polishing your dissertation/thesis before submitting it to the committee. Without unpleasant feedback from your adviser, you do not know where you should focus on and pay attention to. In contrast, when you obtain strong feedback on your work, you can change/add/remove some parts that can be clear to you as the author, but be less obvious for the rest of the audience. From my own experience, it is a great work to come up with nice review instead of simple "It is not good" or "I like everything here". And because of that I highly respect reviewers who provide thorough and deep comments regardless of the final decision about admission/rejection of the paper.

I have many papers rejected. The usual comment "out of scope" can be ambiguous. Is the scope of a journal just the trend taken from an adopted perspective from broader stated intentions in a journals conception...this can be very informative towards constructing an approach to the communication of your ideas; it can also reflect closed minds that need approach from better angles or lack of comprehension from a failure to connect or address appropriately problems addcressed. Scholars in all fields are not especially logically rigorous in their expression and can get lazy sometimes to accept ordinazry norms without challange...the challange of the author is to draw attention to issues where they intersect appropriately and lead to further reflection. In other situations a review reading "unclear" expression or arguments or thesis can be very helpful, especially if the reviewer elaborates his opinion with example. I have been in the situation where I had thought and rethought evidence and interpretation and saw no other routes of approach, though today I know there are possible questions and different interpretation. Most frustrating is where new presented interpretation raises questions (potentially obvious to some readers) that, though addressible, beyond the range of my expertise, my new interpretation cogent, gets short changed for exposure on that account ...is my impression in some cases. This too has a positive benefit, it points out the benefit in being simple, using as few words as possible for clear expression, to examine/state in an open manner thoughts about the topic at the outset whether you believe they are entailed to the thesis or not...if not soley just for your own perspective to make as broad a list as can be stretched whether you include reference in your writing or not...so readers do not have to labor excessively to know your reasoning....I try to remember that in most cases an audience can be much more varied in orientation and reasoning than those at, for example, a biology convention on "Microtubules". Most of my rejections are "out of scope" or "lack of clarity" with little detailed comment of contents...this may not be the general case though the guidelines I discuss, I think are still important. Even within accepted papers I think there is still much room for improvement along those lines to make writing clear and accessible. I can remember comments received as a graduate student in biology about some of my experiments and philosophical efforts ...e.g. "for Journal of Theoretical Astrophysics (at the time there was just "Astrophysics"....or "Russian science"."put that away for later".

One must be aware that no actual party can claim absolute definition in topics when you believe there are other expressions and interpretation....One should not take rejections too personally, the first steps in science came as do your own, from imagination that can have strong cultural and historical influences able to make sound notions look like "pseudo science" that can be difficult for some to sort from the actual case...looking through the literature perfection is not the general case either, you cannot expect it of yourself but openness in expression is always essential.

Dear Miranda Yeoh

Yes, this happened some time.

The reviewers should be more thorough in review sometime reviewers and detailed reviews help successful modification.

Decision seriously doesn't matter if there is a rationale for rejection.

Sure.

Many times, the paper was rejected but the reviewers' comments sent to us. This helped us to improve the paper before sending it to another journal. In general, the paper needed very few MA revisions and was quickly accepted.

This came up to me at least twice.

In review process language, flow, logical sequence, background, objective, findings, analyses, references and conclusion and directions matters. Receiving comments in any will naturally be beneficial.

Yes Dr. Afaq we can all agree inspite of different experiences that a good review is very benefical irrespective of the editor's decision. However I have recently noted that most reviewers these days dont do a diligent review and give vague comments, sometimes even incorrect. Probably the publishers should have some paid senior reviewers as well. Because the quality of review process is very important and the experience in this case will be less frustating for the authors.

We seem to depart now and then from the subject ot this discussion that was not whether reviewers' crtiticizm of your manuscript can be useful for you (which they very often are) or not (which they, again, are but too often) but whether the final rejection of this manuscript can give you anything except disappoinyment and be beneficial.

I see some of respondees feel that it can be so. Honestly, I 've never enjoyed masochistically my offers having been rejected either by a woman or by a Journal, but my experience taught me that convincing the latter to change the mind is still somewhat less hopeless. And if you fail, there are other women and Journals to try. And then, if you fail again and again, you may either look for a conspiration (a very unproductive position!) or look into a mirror attentively for the first time. If you do just it. and are honest enough not too like what you see you may become a better person indeed. I am repeating what I've already said some days ago but I really believe that only in this way a rejection can be beneficial for you.

And about your manuscript being out of a Journal's scope etc. Several time I sent a short annotation by a person-to-person message to the Editor asking him/her whether it would be worthwhile to prepare and submit such a manuscript to their Journal. When I got anwers in negarive or no answer at all, I understood that I should not bother.

Dear Miranda

Sometimes, when you do something absolutely original, the referees may actually reject your article because accepting your findings might mean rejection of his own lifetime works! In such a case, it is better to send the article to another journal, particularly if you are sure that your findings are indeed correct. On the other hand, if the work is a generalization or a modification of an earlier work, the referees may reject the article because the journal concerned may be of a standard much higher than your work.

@Saif Uddin, yes, it would be good for reviewers and editors to be with us on this thread. They are most welcome. Like many other authors, I wish that journals make it clear what is really their scope, so we don't have to waste our time and theirs.

As for reviewers who are not willing or able to do a fair job, they should decline the task and let it go to the reviewers who can do a diligent job. At times, we need many months or a year to carry out a research, from Problem Statement to Conclusion. Surely our work should not fall into irresponsible hands. Don't the reviewers have a sense of responsibility towards the author, the scientific community and those who may benefit from the work, perhaps even other teachers and students.

I have one more complaint at this moment. Certain people seem to think that Asians (Malaysians) are all poor at Grammar. Perhaps that is their assumption from the segment of the population that they have met. Please don't think that this is true of all Asians. Thanks for all your comments and your time, dear friends on RG. I will be back soon, as soon as other commitments permit.

@Boris. Thank you, sir. It's interesting that you have lumped together journals and women. All the readers will get a good laugh :)

Miranda. no cause for laughing indeed! A he-researcher is supposed to be a man, and if he is traditionally oriented, for him a high-impact woman is no less important as compared with a Journal with a high Impact Factor. If you substitute she, her for he, him, and man for woman (and vice versa) will it still be true? It is up to you to decide.

And, living very close to the Europa-Asia boundary (from the Asian side) I'd like to assure you that not all EurAsians are as corny as I.

To Joachim: The main person of an old Soviet comedy picture called Dr Aybolit (a counterpart of the Good Doctor Dolittle) sings a song with a refrain: "It is very good for us / It is very good for us / That everythingl is bad as yet!".

Paraphrasing Edison regarding his multitudes of unsuccessful attempts at the "LIGHT BULB" with various materials (including hair from the horse's bottom, tail) for the "element": "I've failed in so many different ways that I've finally figured out how not to".

As long as one understands the "lemons to lemonade" principle, "failure would be nothing but a stepping stone to success". Besides, each of our thoughts (publications) need be independent or irrespective of the "publication/review process". However, it is our vain "self gratification" that impels us to seek approval by our peers (approve publication). In many instances this approval process affects the demeanor and academic/professional future of the researcher. That gets to be tricky!

Ultimately, it is all "sales"! "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. So, if the research is unique and meaningful, then by using the right words one would be able to convince an objective reviewer to approve. Hopefully, logically!

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=2683600&type=member&item=5820353575301189634&qid=4ad8e54b-91a0-4193-8ee8-6640b02976f7&trk=groups_most_recent-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmr_2683600

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TU1P2_I0iE#!

Rejection (failure) is never final until one accepts it as so! For a researcher with self confidence and conviction "rejection" would be like "water off a duck's back". So there would be no need for S&M, thus avoiding, "I've never enjoyed masochistically my offers having been rejected either". I sort of agree with Boris in the sense that "rejection" should be a motivator (a cattle prod) to do better rather than a "pacifier". It is all in the attitude!

@Ravi, I would say that this phiolsophical take on "rejection" is perfectly fine and understandable. But when you get rejection of a research paper for no good reason there is a sense of frustation and you have lost atleast 6 months of time.

"Sense of frustration and you have lost at least 6 months of time". I empathize! But, the source of the "agita" cannot be eliminated if you are in the "hunt" for publications. There is no guarantee that the reviewer, be it man or woman, is of the same opinion as the subject. Approval is not inevitable. Or else, the value of your publication may be diminished significantly. "Double edged sword"! It is a matter of finding the right audience in many cases. Take for example Nikola Tesla. Imagine his sense of frustration when Edison rejected his IP regarding A.C. Despite it, Nikola went on to "Rock" the world with his concept. Great ideas will be accepted eventually irrespective of the bias of some reviewer. Right audience!

BTW since I'm not a fervent publisher, in fact a dismal one, what is the typical "rejection rate" that we are talking about? I'm sure that would depend on the journal and its fame/popularity.

A fair rejection is not bad. During PhD thesis evaluation I observe a list of submitted papers. These papers are naturally based on some bifurcated ideas during the work. Fair rejection provides strength to those ideas.

@Joachim Pimiskern: Thank you Sir, for the link to Claire's paper.

Dear Friends, recently I asked a journal committee member (in Malaysia) if I can re-write a conference proceeding, and submit to his journal. But the reply was that I can't do that for science papers. Is this so in your country?

This can be editorial polivcy of the journal. The confrence Abstracts can be expanded to a full paper. However if your paper is published as a conference Paper, you should not be resubmitting the same content to journal.

@Saif and Ravi Ananth, sometimes I think that the paper is not accepted because it was reviewed by someone who was biased in his/her views. I would be willing to submit a video-recording of my Music Mnemonics, just as I have uploaded these videos on RG (you can see and hear it there).

But one reviewer even asked for the music score. Can you imagine that, asking for a score of a simple nursery rhyme like the tune 'Papa Aiman Mama' or 'Ten Little Indian Boys'? What good can a score do in a journal? I'm mystified.

It's also very easy for a reviewer to say 'out of scope of journal' and 'poor English'. (It's not reasonable, just as how Naveen has described.)

But I re-wrote my paper, see below and submitted it for an international conference, 2012. Uploaded it on RG; to date there are more than 785 downloads of that paper on RG alone. I also uploaded it on Academia Edu.

['Conference Proceeding: The Effectiveness of Musical Mnemonics in Teaching Biology: Krebs Cycle'

and 'The Krebs Cycle' (video-recording)]

@Saif Uddin. Thanks, I have many topics and sub-topics to research on in my field. So I won't submit the same stuff more than once. Thanks again.

Well, thank you for the discussion - have been away from my computer (with family and friends over Christmas - hope you had a good one).

Well, I believe rejection is part of the academic writing process! so, when rejection is received the reviewers will be providing some great input that will improve the paper... indeed, researchers would have more than one field... but in addition to the fields there is a need to publish that what was rejected too - after affecting all the amendments to it.

Regards

If a person does not err, then there is no improvement. At least looking at this matter from a learning view. Rejection is a factor towards improvement provided that the reviewer adds constructive comments. However, there is always the possibility of a "mean reviewer" who is not ready to add his/her one cent worth of exchanging ideas!

Miranda, I appreciate your question. I have authored or coauthored many papers over the past 25 years, and have had many rejections. The key here is to persist to put your ideas out there in spite of rejections. If one journal closes the door, revise with whatever feedback you obtained that you consider valid, and go to another journal. Your ideas may simply be ahead of their time or out in a direction that others may not understand. It is also possible that you simply need to reframe your ideas in terms others can better identify with them. I have also served as editor to some journals and have perspective with regard to rejection or more correctly major revisions. Papers from non-native English speakers sometimes require major editing to improve the writing. In some journals editors will return these with rejections leaving an option for resubmission when authors improve the manuscript. Right or wrong the expectation is that authors will be persistent with their papers. The worst situation is where the paper is returned without review as is done in journals where a board of editors prescreen papers. Here we are left guessing how to improve a paper. But the key is to submit elsewhere and push the ideas forward. Some of the papers that were rejected at first, I now consider some of my best work. But I must admit rejection is not painless. We simply must find the stubbornness to move the paper forward regardless of the opposition. Sorry for writing so much, you posted a great question, and I couldn't resist.

Very much I agree with you James. Persuasiveness, patience, and determination to workout the gaps pay at the end. Although some times we get contradicting reviews from different editors/reviewers, we may fall in temporary amazement, but consolidating the reviews is worth while.

Imagine being Galileo Galilei! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei - For his writings and thoughts this was his review, "he was tried by the Holy Office, then found "vehemently suspect of heresy", was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[11][12] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences, in which he summarized the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.[13][14]"

@Theodora, James, Hussin and Ravi; thanks for the points raised. It was not so much that the rejection caused a dent to the ego. It was just the loss of time, and in my situation here, it's not easy to look for a free journal or one that is low cost; because I work without a grant.

Sending the paper for a national or international conference is a good option, I suppose. At conferences, I make many contacts and get to know of the existence of other suitable journals, where (hopefully) my paper will not be out of scope.

@Ravi, you have enriched this discussion greatly; by reminding us of Galileo, thanks!

Dear Miranda ,

For the past 16 years of learning and reading , three of my proposals has rejected by my professor !

The following are the reason for rejection and what I have experienced :

1) Learning organization ( 1995- 1999) : the approach to technological know how related to the types internal structure of the company .

Reason : The out come is very difficult to measure by quantitative method .

2) Theory of film ( 2002- 2004 ) , the growth of knowledge will strengthen the performance of the organization

Reason: The time frame to measure the outcome is hard to control .

3) Variance of organizational commitment , the relation between the personality and organization .The studies of Malaysia banking ( 2005 - present )

Reason : I dropped this paper after I found another student presented a more or less the same research proposal paper on another conference , the only difference was , he make use of hotel industry .

What I recall was , I did present this abstract and proposal paper during one research methodology seminar in one of the local university earlier . Few months later ,then, I found a " New" paper ( like my proposal paper ) presented at another conference .

Then, I make amendment on my proposal ,and enhance my current paper by using CAPS model from Professor Walter Mischel.

One of the trick and my experiences was , when I reading most of the newly PUBLISHED Journal paper from the Journal of Individual difference and Personality , about 30 -50 % of the paper cited on any of the new journal paper found I have read it before ! this means , after the reading of more than 1 meter height of articles and journal paper on the same topic for not less than 2 years , you will have a better grips of those theories on this topic well ! Try yourself ! and I will like to know your feedback.

This is why I never added my proposal and new finding on any web site ,or even present it beside share with my supervisor !

Last ! I wish you a very Happy year of the Golden Horse !

Cheers !

A rich forum full of beneficial insights. Happy new year to all.

@ Ravi, Miranda,

Gallileo WAS forced to recant, and even if his words "And yet it moves" were not a myrh his contemporaries did not hear them while his recantation was, I am sure, well advertised by the Holy Inquisition - and so the development of Knowlege was efficiently slowed down. That not many rejected papers are of of the comparable significance is not a good excuse for modern inquisitors in disguise of (quasi)peer-reviewers and handling editors as in toto they achieve a similar result.

@ Juan-Esteban: "The most powerfull rejecting machinery is time. Most papers are ignored several decades after their publication. Time is the most implacable referee. However, even time can be wrong in few occasions.." You are right, of course, but do not blame only Time for it is efficiently helped - again by Editors and reviewers who strongly disaprove references to works published 5-10 years ago, to say nothing about "older" ones, and are ready to propose a major revision of your paper just because your references are "obsolete". So you drop them (even when you know that their authors were first to demonstrate just what is relevant for your paper) and are looking for a recent publication repeating the same facts or ideas. So a younger researcher knowing about this is not looking for who were first to find or say something important and so they are not only ignored but completely forgotten. I think those of us who were unforunate to live too long might illustrate this with their personal experience. I may.

Rejection leads to improvement in totoo....i send my article in national which was rejected ,,,,,then i resubmit and re-edit that one to be published in international journal with good impacts...

So i said ,,,low aim is like a crime so hope for the best ..shoot always for the moon ..if you fail ,,you may be in between the stars.....happy and prosperous new year to all rg....

Yes, Dhiraj and friends, we have the right SPIRIT :)

Well, I'm d-d if I understand why such a natural function of a researcher as presentation of his results should be made a heroic act. Such a waste of creative forces! It reminds me the Soviet propaganda for which harvesting was not mere harvesting but always The Battle for the Crop.

Boris! Gallileo's house arrest and unfair treatment, while not being very pleasent (without TV), perhaps made him even more famous. That is debatable. "Lemon to lemonade" syndrome, perhaps? But some of the trials and tribulations of more recent scientists from the ex-USSR, I'm sure, were even more note-worthy. The point was that, what we face today as challenges are but “tempests in a tea-pot" compared to what some of these stalwarts experienced.

Yew! Thanks for the only statistic in this discussion, 3 rejections in 16 years of publication attempts (how many total estimated?) doesn't seem so disastrous or like an "inquisition", as Boris expresses. So it must be a personal paradigm.

BTW all humans have some sort of a bias or the other invariably. I'd think (my opinion), rationality will triumph eventually, on an average at least! People skills (“The Art of Gentle Persuasion”) and good language skills are critically important.

Incidentally, language and translation challenges should really be nonexistent these days due to the ubiquitous Google Translator. The trick to be accurate is to use short & simple sentences. It would also be a good idea to double check your translation by “double translating” to make sure that what you see is what you meant. I’ll make an attempt below. http://translate.google.com/#auto/sr/Happy%20New%20Year!

Have a safe and jubilant New Year celebration!

Happy New Year! 新年快乐！Срећна Нова година! Selamat Tahun Baru! С Новым Годом! Šťastný Nový Rok! An Nou Fericit! புத்தாண்டு வாழ்த்துக்கள்! Felice Anno Nuovo! ¡Feliz Año Nuevo! La shona tova tiki tevoo! نیا سال مبارک ہو! नया साल मुबारक हो!

Very rightly said Prof. Boris. It is researcher's own creation. Who are we to reject it? Can we reject God's creation? No then why to reject? If one can not read researcher's minf then it is reviewer's problem not researcher's...

"a natural function of a researcher as presentation of his results should be made a heroic act" - Because it is so, in the mind of each researcher that pours "blood, sweat & tears" in to the work. BTW that was not the intent of sharing the heroics of some of our predecessors.

As a reviewer, if I were mandated to approve everything then I would be redundant & purposeless, correct? Publishing "anything & everything" would dramatically reduce the value of "publications", in my opinion. Besides, there are sufficient internet media available today to "publish anything & everything" anyway in the Blog-o-sphere. Publications are a creations of MAN/WOMAN and as such do not deserve the pedestal of "holiness" yet. This was precisely the challenge that Galileo and other contemporaries confronted.

Sorry to have been misunderstood. I do not think that any trash deserves publication nor that there are no honest and competent reviewers and Editors. However the Battle for Publication more often than not begins when they are not.

I don't even mean "trash" in the context of quality but more so from a competitive edge for the "real estate" on the publication. Back since the mid 1980's, I refused to publish unless publications at no cost would put up pseudo color data. I consider my publications as my personal IP and choose to share it with others when I so feel. I obviously have a slightly different posture with my "Intellectual Property". Hence my publications rate is dismal and I suffer no rejection at all!

Dear Boris,

If you ever happen to discover something new, neither a modification nor a generalization of any earlier result, just try to get it published, and you would then understand how badly the referees behave! Particularly when you happen to challenge an existing theory, then the referees behave peculiarly. I have experienced this, not once but twice. Imagine Galileo sending an article on his Heliocentric Model of the Solar System to a journal of his times. What would have been the response of the referees who believed in the Geocentric System of the Universe? You can imagine that, can't you?

Wish you a happy 2014!

Hemanta, I know exactly how you feel. Despite obstacles, we carry on with our work. Perhaps our RG friends in US and Europe cannot understand our lack of funds and facilities, yet the work proceeds. That's why we expect reviewers and editors to be just, not favor or prefer the papers of their friends due to relationships.

I have phrased this question positively, but like Boris and others, I have yet to experience a rejection that proved better. If I have to publish as a proceeding, so be it, although it's not by choice. From the discussion on this thread, we can see other friends and scientists describe their various experiences and the experiences of others; even Galileo's. Perhaps our work is to strengthen us morally, not just for our contribution to society. (Today, I mainly read posts, and wait to reply tomorrow when I can use the office desktop. It's difficult to do this on my 7 inch tab, which is all I have at home right now. )

I suppose that referees fear to accept something that in a future can be proved to be wrong. Sometimes rejection can be a consequence of referee fear, mainly when very new ideas are exposed. In this case, the author's good reputation helps referees to surpass their fear.

Nevertheless, maths is based upon logics and author's reputation is not a mathematical axiom from which some theorems can be derived. This is why, I think, that mathematical literature must be refereed by double blind method.

Dear Hemanta, dear Juan- Esteban,

I believe that reviewers who are not happy when seeing something innovative or even breaking through are but a representative sample of the scientific community. Among works I managed to publish during my long life (even in quite popular journals) just such innovative ones that I am realy proud of are the least cited and then forgotten. The most cited are the most standard papers co-authored by me confirming something well known. C'est la vie... What is to be done? Nothing, I am afraid, but continuing to bear the burden of scientists and hoping for a miracle.

@Miranda, my answer is a hundredth of this rich discussion. As my review stated earlier, I just want to congratulate you on the excellent thread choice and wish everyone a happy new year!

Dear All,

I propose to have a look at the following RG discussions dealing publication and rejection and may well approach these issues

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

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

Dear All,

I think rejection is necessary if a manuscript is poor, has no sense to publish. It would be good to know the rate of this kind of manuscripts.

Rejection can be benevolent if the manuscript can be improved and will achieve after correction the standard of a given journal and does not harm the essence or the novelty of the manuscript.

Review or rejection must be harmful if an editor or a reviewer make impossible the publication of new ideas, phenomenon, hypotheses in order to cement mainstream dogmas of a scientific field or not the essence is really important but a special style of the journal.

In case of desk rejected manuscripts without valuable explanations the work of reviewer or editor is good for nothing.

Good point Andras, are there any statistics about rejection rates accompanied by the reasons? I doubt journals will publish that. Maximum I read that acceptance rate is 20% or so.