We know that rejection of research papers is very common in academic publishing, but what really bothers the authors is rejecting their papers without stating the reasons for rejection by editors, particularly when the paper matches the scope of the journal and the writing of the paper is academically acceptable, but it still somehow not enough to get accepted. The decision letter only informs the authors about the decision without any further explanations as to why such a decision was taken, many editors do this, it happened to me a couple of times. Why do editors do this? Why don't they care to explain the reasons for rejection? This is completely unfair to authors, especially if the submitted paper complies with the journal requirements. It's very frustrating. What should the authors do in this case?
The phrase "academically unacceptable" is a phrase that publishers use, and I think it means, literally, that your writing is not academically stringent enough. That might mean, for example, that you write like you talk - which you shouldn't, and It might also indicate that the paper has the wrong structure. I suggest that you talk with a senior scientist near you about this.
You probably have not compared what you write in the new paper to what came before, and therefore you have not motivated why we should read this stuff. You are supposed to stand on the shoulders of giants, and you need to make sure that you are connected to this past story, so that you can both motivate WHY this paper is worth-while, and HOW.
I can also give you a hint from me - based on a paper of mine and a colleague about academic writing:
“Subben׳s checklist” and the assessment of articles in mathematical optimization/operations research: In memoriam of Subhash C. Narula
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03050548
It is - literally - a guide to both the writing of a paper, and how to assess the quality of a paper.
I really do think you will have much use for it, and I suggest you talk with your closest senior scientist so that your use of it becomes optimal. She/he will know. :-)
Good luck!
Dear Boubekeur Med
Often this information is described in the submission guidelines. You will find an example below.
"If the article does not conform to the journal’s range of themes, or does not meet the formal and linguistic standards required, then it is rejected.
The first editorial review will adhere to the following questionnaire:
- Does the article fulfill the conditions of delivery required (among them, for example, the author ‘s previous register in ORCID, Academia.edu and Mendeley.com)? Please check the author’s presence in social networks of researchers.
- Is the manuscript’s material presentation correct? Does it comply with ... presentation instructions?
- Is the manuscript’s linguistic presentation correct? Does it show carelessness in writing, grammatical errors or spelling mistakes?
- Does it fit the range of ... themes? What is its interest for the journal’s readers?"
Editorial process of Magnificat Cultura i Literatura Medievals http://ojs.uv.es/index.php/MCLM/
Dear Anna Haupeltshofer
I'm assuming that these requirements are already fulfilled, so if the decision of rejection is not related to these issues, it must be fully explained to the authors.
Always you can feel free to ask from journals about your manuscripts status and most of the time they kindly guide you.
The phrase "academically unacceptable" is a phrase that publishers use, and I think it means, literally, that your writing is not academically stringent enough. That might mean, for example, that you write like you talk - which you shouldn't, and It might also indicate that the paper has the wrong structure. I suggest that you talk with a senior scientist near you about this.
You probably have not compared what you write in the new paper to what came before, and therefore you have not motivated why we should read this stuff. You are supposed to stand on the shoulders of giants, and you need to make sure that you are connected to this past story, so that you can both motivate WHY this paper is worth-while, and HOW.
I can also give you a hint from me - based on a paper of mine and a colleague about academic writing:
“Subben׳s checklist” and the assessment of articles in mathematical optimization/operations research: In memoriam of Subhash C. Narula
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03050548
It is - literally - a guide to both the writing of a paper, and how to assess the quality of a paper.
I really do think you will have much use for it, and I suggest you talk with your closest senior scientist so that your use of it becomes optimal. She/he will know. :-)
Good luck!
First and foremost, an author most have a mentor or someone coahcing him/her to become a professional author. By following all the rudements of writing an article or a journal under the supervision
A radio button selection such as "academically acceptable/not acceptable" in the web page that editors state their decision may partly solve the problem. Minimal time loss for the editors and at least a hint for the authors.
There are also rejections without any explanation AFTER an editor accepts the paper and sends it to reviewers. A rejection from reviewers without any explanation is at least rude and in my opinion, should be prevented. A rejection must include at least a bit of clear explanation, just like an empirical argument needs one.
You have one definition of "academically acceptable", while the editorial board and the referees may have other ones. Obviously you have not written your paper such that it is clear what problem you are addressing, OR you have not motivated the study (same as describing what is lacking in the current literature), OR it is badly written. Compare your manuscript with a few of the most cited papers in the journal you wish to publish in - and try to mimic how it's done.
Do you offer hints for further research at the end of the paper?
Do you motivate all the main tasks that you perform?
Do you cite relevant papers for your work - classic papers as well as current ones, so you can compare what we already know to what we will now when we have read your article?
So you see that there are plenty of ways to help the reader to get an orientation. It's up to you to decide your focus, while you also have to write your paper such that it becomes understood - no fancy lingo, no silly prose. Get to it! And Good Luck!
They have no obligation to tell you the reason. But you can ask them and they might actually tell you. Most likely it wasn't as "good" as the paper they accepted in its place. and "Good" probably has a different meaning to them than it does to you.
Some very good answers here. I find that a good strategy is to be 'realistic' abot rejection when submitting manuscripts - particulalrly as feedback (apart from general) is not always forthcoming. If I am 'aiming high' with a journal - then rejection is more expected but, hopefully, I will get some good feedback. I always recommend authors to do their 'homework' on journal selection as well i.e. carefully study scope, existing material on the topic - and quality of review processes.
Michael Patriksson It is true that English is not my native language, not even my second language. However, I have submitted some papers for publication before and I did not receive serious critics about my writing. Your suggestion about comparing the most cited articles of the journal with mine could be really helpful, thanks
I thank everyone who participated in this thread, all your suggestions are wholeheartedly welcomed.
Some editors are bias, some of them are busy,
But
Most of times, submited paper doesn't fit to the journal scope. They have also some default files for rejection and sometimes space limits them to choose potent articles that drawing attention and novelty
It never helps to complain to the editors, unless it is very obvious that they - or the reviewers - have done something wrong. If you feel that you have been unfairly rejected - send a simple e-mail to the handling editor and ask why, and try to explain how you have been thinking.
Usually when a paper get rejected, editors find it easy to provide a generic reply instead stating specific issues.
Editor of any reputed or low-reputed journals even receive most likely more paper to choose from than their capacity.
In this regard, answering individual author their reasons of rejection is quite a hectic job.
If it gets rejected even you think it was supposed to get published there, please go through other relevant papers of the journal to find the difference.
Lastly, option to ask the Editor politely is always open.
I have been through this and I can attest how frustrating it is. I find it rather rude for some editors not to provide comments for rejection. I am guessing most editors do this to save some time, assuming they have tons of papers to review. I’ve had my fair share of similar experiences but I think the key is to not take it personally. Editors and journals have different standards and preferences and we can only try our best to meet them. I would suggest getting in touch with the editors, they will most likely respond with specific reasons why. I think it would be a shot.
You can always try again and this time, pay special attention to some aspects of your work so it won't get rejected. From experience, the most common reasons for rejection would be:
- Your paper not being a good fit with the journal’s scope/objectives
- The article did not offer anything “new”
- The paper was not structured in an ideal manner/arguments not presented in the best way
- Paper needs a lot of editing work
- You did not follow guidelines strictly
There are a lot of resources on the internet that can be helpful. It might be worth your while to check them out. Here is one example: https://americanpublishingservices.com/blog/top-reasons-rejection-research-papers/
The editors are also scholars, and they need to be able to work on their own papers every now and then! :-)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers