It depends: the editors usually decide themselves which reviewers' comments are more important (e.g. sometimes, 2 reviewers have published a lot, so, their opinions may matter more than the opinion of the 3rd one who is maybe still a young scholar/PhD student) and thus, if they should accept or reject a paper with e.g. 2 very positive reviews and 1 very negative review or if they will tell the author(s) to still make any major revisions. You can write the editor and explain in a very detailed way why you don't agree with the negative reviewer's comments, but this will not guarantee that your paper will be accepted.

In my experience you can challenge an editor’s decision when the review is clearly biased. When challenging the decision you may receive a letter from the editor explaining that if you incorporate the comments from the reviewers you may submit your paper again, as a new submission. Under those circumstances, the editor may pick the reviewers more carefully and your paper may be published in the journal. But I don’t believe that many editors would publish a pepper that has been rejected by the reviewers (before you do some substantial changes), even if you can demonstrate that the reviewers did not a very good job. It is very difficult to find reviewers for some topics and most editors will stand with the final decision. Few times we have challenged final decisions, with very comprehensive explanations of why the papers should be considered. Once the editor, even considering that was someone who knew very well our job, did not want to reconsider the manuscript. Other two times, the editors ask us to resubmit the manuscript and at the end the papers were published.

Well I did it a couple of times (maybe 3-4 times), but to be honest NEVER succeeded…

…so far

I am also an active reviewer but no editor

I think given their semi-god position, it is difficult also for them to retract their original decision, even if you show it was unfair. They will always argument, well the journal rejection rate is that high that even good manuscripts as this one must be rejected…

Of course, you can challenge an editor’s decision when it is clearly biased. In principle the editor must base on the reviews to make a decision, but sometimes it is just not like this. I have got a few times (the times I challenged them) rejection letters with in general positive reviews (with a couple of improvements), but editors decision was not even major revision, just directly reject…

In agreement with Ernesto, I did a few times incorporate the comments from the reviewers you may submit your paper again, as a new submission (sometimes on my own, sometimes as a response to the editors answer). And in about half of the occasions it worked positively (either acceptance, or decision to revise).

unfortunately, the editor dont respond about reject and accept. Is there any regulation for enforcing he editor for appropriate reply about accept or reject?

Sincerely

Important topic

I utterly agree with Dr. Farid. If the rejection is exactly due to reasons in the questions and other important reasons mentioned by Dr. Farid, best challange i think is inform them first and prove it by publishing in a better journal.

Regards

Below are recent extracts from an Editor-in-Chief which I contacted after a Journal decided to reject work which I and two of the reviewers thought was very good. My argument was that the Editor selected was not appropriate and that he very clearly lacked experience in the specific area of the paper.

Response from Editor-in-Chief: "It is often a judgment call based on a reviewer and editor’s experience and perception of the state of the art." and " Also, while we do consider author recommendations for suggested editors, we cannot always accommodate them due to editor work load."

Which was rather odd since I was arguing that the Editor lacked the experience in the specific field and had it gone to one of the journal editors who was more appropriate then the outcome would have been different. If the Journal in question aims at providing its authors a high service then making sure the submissions go to the appropriate Editors and referees should be of paramount importance. The response I was given suggests otherwise.

My advice would be to make every effort in your Cover Letters to ensure your paper goes to the most appropriate Editors. If they are so busy that they cannot immediately be assigned your work, then make it clear that you are prepared to wait! If they don't assign the Editor you like, then complain BEFORE the outcome of the evaluation is finalised.

Quite disappointed from both the response of the Editor-in-Chief.

Dear Panayiotis,

let me put it from another side. The question is, if you REALLY WANT the manuscript to be published in THIS JOURNAL.

It is possible to get in contact with editors and there are several ways to get your paper published although the first decision was negative.

a) you can try to convince the editor to discard the negative review (assuming the other was positive) and look for an alternative reviewer.

b) you can work hard to improve your manuscript and re-submit it to the same journal. You can try to convince the editor to send the manuscript to different reviewers.

BUT again: You should undergo only these tasks if you REALLY WANT the manuscript to be published in THIS JOURNAL.

My experience is that editors don't really appreciate procedures a) and b) and that sending the manuscript to another journal including the nasty comments of the reviewers finally helps to get it quickly published.

Some reviewers count themselves as the world's leading scientists. They need to be more humble! They often emit feelings or personal beliefs contrary to any scientific argument. They reject publications on highly subjective basis, as they are aware of great tenors from well-respected universities and their related research areas' products that are readily accepted, even if the proposed topic is not worth a scrap. They developed a kind of spectacle if not an elitist publication and are going to get missed productions that are truly advancing science. Within the framework of the current HIGH IMPACT FACTOR RACE of the WELL-RESPECTED journals, the authors-reviewers relationships are biased. Editors agree with all that. In fact, science is dying. Please note, Chinese journals are developing currently new propositions in meeting all these challenges!

I got acceptance for publishing with modification, then I have modified the two referee comments and clarified their inquiries. first round took me 4 months and second round took me 5 months, finally, after 9 months, I had sent a message to the editor asking him about my paper, after few days, the editor sent me the response of only one referee which is rejection because he made a calculation of one equation incorrectly. I have appealed the decision and respond to referee to clarify his incorrect way of calculation which was silly. the referee knew his mistake but he don't want to admit. He started to argue other points which are incorrect also to support his decision. We took all his argument and break it politely. The editor did not read our discussion and just said it is enough and decision cannot change.

after nine months, we don't know what is wrong and we do not have any recommendation to improve our work.

I do not know what can I do?

Hi Ammar, send it to a better journal (with more IF and citation rate), I'm sure it'll get accepted. Your work seems valuable! Good luck, Titto

Normally, the reasons for rejection of articles would be mentioned in the rejection letter. If the authors feel that the referee’s criticisms are unfair and invalid or that the referee has misunderstood your interpretations, you may write to the editor detailing your points. The author can explain why s/he disagrees with the referees, and suggest some modifications to make the paper more meaningful. If the points raised by the authors are reasonable, most editors send the paper to a third referee.

If you cannot wait for this much time or you feel that the process will take much time, it is better to revise your article and send it to a new journal.

Important topic.

But what to do when the paper is sent for review in a high impact journal for nearly 2 months and the 2 reviewers' comments are very positive with one of them declaring no specific issues about the paper! Then the editor surprisingly rejected it based on "priority basis" !!

It is well known to all in the field that if there are any priority issues, the paper is rejected from the editorial office before peer review. If the paper is sent for peer review, this means that the editorial office sees that it's plausible for publication and the editor in this case should simply comply with the comments of reviewers.

Opinions ??

Honestly, i wouldn't do anything. if the Editor has an agenda, it won't help and no matter what tact you take they won't change their behavior.

If its a more benign reason then as my major professor used to say, "its a competitive world out there, send it to another journal". Getting hung up on this will only serve to hurt you, not the editor. you have a lot of papers and a long career ahead of yourself, don't waste valuable time fighting editors.

I've tried and it never resolves to anything other than hard feelings.

Proceed with caution.

Hello,

A paper had constructive comments from two reviewers and a reject from the third without comment. The revised version was sent to the same reviewers. Two was accepted the paper without comment, and the third gave the same rejection without comment. The third reviewer asked for doing technically infeasible work in just one line. The current decision is minor revision, but no comment to carry out. I explained the issue to the editor and wait. Any advice?

Ali, wait for the Editor to respond. Be patient.

I could convince the editor to retract the rejection decision. The paper has been finally published in the same journal, and without any revision.

I received very positive comments from the reviewers, one suggest accept and the other suggested very minor revisions. However in the decision letter the editor says that as you see the reviewers comment is against publication of your work and I must reject it!!!!. Can any one help me?

Unfortunately, many decisions of editors are away from the right one. I think the decision should be voted by editorial team not only taken by editor alone.

Regarding my manuscript, three reviewers gave positive comments only with minor corrections... It took one and half year for the review... After resubmitting the corrected manuscript, surprisingly the editor rejected it claiming less sample size.. Isn't it insane??? What could I do??? Any advice?

Over the last 12 months odd: I guess I was interested to have a paper rejected for being safety related and not of interested to a journal's readership, even though safety is an attribute of dependability models sponsored by the same journal that rejected it.

I was bemused that a paper discussing basic argument theory was rejected by a safety journal, because the readership was not expected to have a background in argument theory - despite likely being contracted to provide safety argumentation.

I have had another flat out rejection, with no explanation. As likely as the editor appears deeply invested in exquisite probabilistic risk assessments in his own writings, versus the material I provided which as around core theoretics of assurance reasoning, and despite the journal professing to appeal generally to system safety (quite a broad readership then I would have thought). The paper might have been too long, an error in the FOL, an overdoes in the FOL at the end. It did rather become tongue in cheek toward the end, as I was as much having a lend of Appeal to Calculus ;) That FOL overload was corrected when I reformatted the rejected document to become a submission into a conference. Fingers crossed. Funnily, the paper I submitted was taking a paper from that same journal the next step. So even the topic had already been in the originating journal. So here is a test, will it get into the conference - stay tuned. I expect to at least get some useful feedback from the conference submission.

If I was expecting to get useful feedback to help improve my writing then I appear to have been mistaken. It appears, at times, more a disparity between the impression the journal presents and where the editor or reviewer's niche beliefs sit. I am not otherwise bothered with the rejections since I am new to the process and I assume its all about finding that sweet spot. I am also trying to harmonise four seemily dispirate academic memes. A hard task, so if I submit to anyone meme the affront at overlaying the other three meme rears.

Still, it is interesting the idea of "peer review" in in fact the person reviewing has no equivalent background in the Theoretics and potentially is rejecting more because it is outside their understanding - which is touch and go whether that is on the author or on the reviewer. If there was a more open dialogue in the process, there might be more to get out of the process.

Journals otherwise do not seem to afford the depth of feedback conference papers afford - or at least in my limited experience so far. I certainly have put my heart into reviews of conference papers, where I have had the privalege to work in a program committee.

So, I wonder if the problem is we need an editor and reviewer rating system? That would create an interesting dynamic? That sounds like a suggestion to improve researchgate.

I think I'm on the same boat now. Got following comments from 2 reviewers after 3 months of peer review. Any suggestions?

Reviewer A:

It is a very good work. Only some suggestions:

Authors must add the solution concentrations used for precision and

accuracy studies.

------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer E:

Is the scope / significance appropriate for the readers of The Journal of

the Chilean Chemical Society ?

:

Yes

Is the abstract of the manuscript clear and concise? ::

No

In Introduction, does the author include recent and significant references?

::

No

In the Introduction, is it the aim of the research cleared defined/stated?::

Yes

Are the experimental and computational methods adequately documented?::

No

Does the Discussion provide a comparative analysis with previously published

works (if any)? ::

Does not apply

If portions of the work have been previously reported, does the present

manuscript represent a substantial extension of the work rather than a

fragmentary increment?:

:

Does not apply

Are the conclusions clearly summarized?::

No

Are the literature references appropriate and correct? (please, take a short

time to verify that all the author’s work related to this paper has been

cited)::

No

Originality:

Low

Significance of Content:

Low

Quality of Presentation:

Low

Scientific Soundness:

Average

Interest of Readers:

Average

Overall Merit:

Low

English Language and Style:

Extensive editing of English language and style required

One of the editors of a reputed journal emailed a decision of non acceptance within 12 hours of submission stating the english and grammar to be weak.

Isn't it a highly biased decision rejecting a paper without any comment on contents of the Research. I believe that it imposed a question mark on the credibility of journal itself and the way they are accepting or rejecting papers.

Having been, usually, treated in a competent and fair way by reviewers and editors, my suggestion is, assuming profound research by the author(s), simply to send the rejected manuscript to another good journal, to avoid further delay in publication. Certainly, this may be problematic, if such alternative journals do not exist.

What should I do whether have to give new reviewer list when paper rejected after the revision?

If you ensure that your work is correct 100% and the references that you have depend on are confidential and from original gornals and you didn't take the text exactly from other reference then you have right to challenge the editors decisions politely.

In general, Journal have every right to accept or reject. However reviewer's comments may be discussed/ justified.

And what to do when a paper is rejected by the editor without even making it to peer review and it becomes very with clear from the editor's response that they haven't even read it (not even the abstract )?

Stoyan, I've been in this position a couple of times. What I did was found recent related work that had been published in the same journal, and argued that the submitted manuscript was of at least equal value to the journals readership and that the editor should give it a chance with the referees. This usually gets the paper to the referees.

If the research is fine, it will be published, in one journal or the other. So, please do not worry about biased referees or short-sighted editors. Certainly, a paper, which is opening new perspectives, will not always appreciated at first quick reading. A poor paper may be rejected, but the referee(s) should state the reasons clearly and convincingly.

A recent related issue!! How reviewers are becoming harsh and a strong gatekeepers for naive researchers...?! Look how reviewers looks like if he/she suggested his/her previous works but authors declined his citation request based on its merit to the current work.

Reviewer 3 (Mr XXX]: It is a great opportunity to review the research article. This research article aimed to determine…The study found…, which are all important. But, authors need to provide more insightful findings to add the research article into the literature. The background and discussion need to be rewritten. I suggested authors to review the following two research articles to make their manuscript robust. References: 1. Mr.XXX.,(2013). Title. volume 38(1). 2. …. , Mr. XXX,… Title. volume 38(1).

Reviewer 3: The first critical problem is the similar findings have been published twenty year ago. It made the manuscript was considered untimely and irrelevant to current ….. Secondly, although the manuscript was considered well written, it is not logical and easy to comprehend; and third, the study was not well designed and had appropriate methodology. It requires substantial revision or reorganization before publication can be considered. I strongly suggest the review the prior two research articles that I provided to build up their research framework and apply innovative methodology to improve their study to produce better manuscript.

Editor’s decision: We think it may be possible to revise your manuscript to address these comments but that this would require longer than our standard revision period. However, we are willing to consider your manuscript further once all the concerns have been addressed.

I sent out an email to argue with the editor from a good journal. The reviewer A is not against our novelty but saying it does not fit the journal. B says it is nice to publish. Then editor find C, saying he likes A more. The key is C is senior reviewer, so I think he may be more biased because of his age. I hope the editor will give me a chance. No problem on any study. They just say it does not fit the journal.

First allways make sure the paper fit with the area of the paper where you want to publish. Then deeply go through the recommandations to authors.

I do not feel it's worth challenging the editor's decision to reject your manuscript. If you challenge his/her decision, just forget to submit any new work to that journal. In most cases, if the editor or reviewer is known to you, you don't need to even prepare the reviews properly. Review A said nothing but wanted some experimental data that we can provide. Reviewer B asked some minor changes without clearly saying for rejection or revision. Reviewer C asked for major revision. After all this thing, the Editor rejected the manuscript. I think at least one chance must be given.

It happened with me 2 times (different manuscripts) while submitting it in the same journal. Both times it comes with Major revision by the reviewers with a strong suggestion of acceptance after defending it. But, the editor (same for both manuscripts) rejects both the times and encourages fresh new submission after substantial revision. I challenged its decision but never received a response from the journal side.

The editot decision on my manuscript "Dear Dr. Tehmina Ayub,

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. Although they have encouraged improvement of the paper we feel that this submission falls short of the demanding standards required by the publisher and therefore I must reject it.

I appreciate that this is disappointing news.: among 5 reviewers, 3 accepted. In my case, editor himself rejected it just because paper falls short the demanding standards. I mean, couldn't they che k prior to proceed with the review the demanding standard? Is it a joke to submit and wait for long time to got such decision

Good paper will always be published

In my case, reviewer suggested major revision and also he forced me to include four references with his own published papers..I am also included finaly they accepted for publication, is it ethical..

Also me I received comments from two reviewers and one of them his comments are illogical and the other his comments with minor corrections and it can be modify and I sured that my subject is far from their subject or interest thus the paper rejected by the editor although the editor still young scholar with a few publications. it’s the worst feeling

But challenging the editor may not even make him change his decision, I prefer to let go

Yesterday I got the most unfair rejection I have ever had.

Four different reviewers accepted the manuscript.

While we were waiting for acceptance, Editor demanded minor revisions twice.

We did them and again were waiting for the acceptance letter.

But she rejected without any reason.

Editors authority cannot be abused indefinitely. In essence, the editor's right to make decisions on a manuscript is constrained by three factors:

a. The feedback from the authors and readers of their journal. (This means that editors may lose their reputation in the academic community when they make unreasonable decisions)

b. The opinions of peer reviewers. (Editors will face greater risks when making decisions that contradict the comments of peer reviewers)

c. The academic ethic of editors. (Such as the rules of ICMJE and WAME)

However, compared with the peer reviewer, the editor's consideration of a manuscripts is affected by another interior factor: the limitation of the journal's publication volume. Sometimes, editors have to reject some manuscripts with adequate quality only because of insufficient publication volume. It is often difficult to be understand by the authors.

Editors are not the decision makers of academic forums, but the maintainers. They have to inevitably make some subjective mistakes in their career, which may harm researchers involuntarily.

No editor wants to make a decision by ignoring the criticisms from the referees. Good articles get published eventually.

I would say not to challenge,as it not gonna change his /her decision.The best way is to submit it to another journal.

I have encountered a similar situation where the editor based their decision on a referee report unrelated to my work.Two reviewers decided accept and one decided reject. The journal's policy is to accept a paper when all the reviewers agree to accept the article. I replied to the editor that the decision was made based on a referee report unrelated to my paper. I provided detailed evidence that the referee report based on which a reject decision was rendered does not speak about my paper. The editor considered my case and then sent to additional reviewers. Finally, my paper is accepted. The point is if you believe that the editor's reject decision is not reasonable, you can request for reconsideration of their decision by providing detailed evidence to back up your appeal.

Best Wishes

Agreed with Dr Tilahun Tehulu . Some referees make comments which have nothing to do with the work, and despite positive feedback from other referees, the editor reject the paper on sole decision of that referee. I immediately appealed and explained the reason why the decision is biased and why the ms should be reconsidered. In fact, it is like the referee raised comments on everything, but on my ms. In such circumstances, I won't let go, I will take the risk of wasting months instead of resubmitting to a new venue. When there is evidence to address referee's comments, we should always try to reverse the editor's decision 2-3 weeks following the decision.

nowadays, since more and more journals emerge everywhere, we need great vigilance on the articles to be published. In this perspective, a lot of reviewers also emerge from nowhere and consider themselves as pros in this field. So it sometimes happens that we have our article rejected for no valid reason after months and months of waiting. A rejection of an article followed by comments and constructive suggestions is always good and poses no problem, contrary it helps to improve the work, and that is the role of a referee. But for example after 1 full year of waiting you find a reviewer, because he doesn't like your face he tells you the work is not well organized, he does not deserve to be published in such a prestigious journal and with such an impact factor , without providing any vital and valid information. In a such case, what has the author gained all this time and how will he have to rearrange his work since no clues have been given? Basically I agree with you saying that if such a situation happens to you send a rebuttal to the editor and ask to review the decision. I did it several times. a reviewer who asked me for an explanation on a species of plant when the objective was to see a microbial effect on the degradation of organic pollutants which had absolutely nothing to do with the work in question........ so ...............@Mazarin Akami

Never knew you could actually challenge an editor's discission. You learn everyday.