Why editors reject manuscripts

Here, we will provide some tips for handling your next manuscript rejection, and discuss your options. Decisions about which articles get published are typically made by the editorial board at the journal. For most journals, manuscripts are rejected at one of two steps in the review process.

The first level is an editorial rejection. Editors reject manuscripts at this stage for one or more technical reasons:. The journal editor may provide additional information in their response letter explaining a specific reason that the manuscript was not considered for review. This information can be very helpful to consider when choosing another journal. Some journals, particularly very high impact factor journals, receive far more submissions than the journal has room to publish, causing otherwise high-quality research manuscripts to be rejected due to space limitations.

In this instance, there may be no technical reason why your article was rejected, simply that other articles took precedence over yours, either because of impact or readership interest. Some of the reasons that reviewers recommend manuscript rejection include:. It is obviously very frustrating to wait anxiously for 6 weeks or more, only to receive a rejection letter.

However, the peer review process, at its heart, is intended to augment scientific publications by elevating their quality to a level that stands up to scrutiny. Once you recover from the frustration of rejection, it can be helpful to consider the feedback you have received as an opportunity to improve your research. Even if your reviewers did not use the kindest words, their ideas likely still have merit. Your strategy moving forward will depend, in part, on the response you have received from the editor and whether you have reviewer feedback to consider.

Each case is unique, but the following general approaches can be used if appropriate:. Everyone has received a rejection letter during their research career. There are many journal options, and you will eventually find a perfect fit for your manuscript. If you like our articles, try our workshops! At the end of the day though, you can only do so much. Hope that helps. You may go to the group here: Researcher Voice. All the best for future submissions — with or without reasons for rejection, though we hope the rejections reduce as you go along on your academic journey.

Answered by Irfan Syed on 17 Jun, Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage. Reasons for Rejection. Q: Why do some editors reject papers without stating the reasons for the rejection? Sometimes, as an oversight the manuscript may be sent to a reviewer who may not be an expert in the field of the subject under review and he may give a casual glance to the manuscript deciding its eventual fate.

In such cases it is believed that there are more chances of the manuscript getting accepted, however, the reverse may also happen.

Although, in reputed international journals, the Editor-in-Chief will certainly consult another reviewer if the comments from one or two of them do not appear to be an outcome of critical evaluation. The Editor-in-Chief always looks at the scope of the research study with respect to that of the journal before deciding whether to send it for reviewing.

Some journal will look for research related to lead molecules rather than the existing and established drug molecules, unless the manuscript is out of the ordinary. Also the time of publication and the value of the particular subject matter being published in a journal are also critical. With the advent of sophisticated in vivo drug estimation technologies and methods to estimate the drug concentrations in minute quantities in a particular subject, a manuscript appears to be handicapped if the in vitro data is not supported by relevant in vivo findings and correlations.

Acceptance of the manuscripts relying completely on the data generated solely through in vitro evaluations is something that is difficult in the present scenario. In some cases, a less than borderline article may be published if well-packaged. In fact this is good for verification of the authenticity of the study. Previous studies that support or disagree with the present study should be mentioned.

Impressions and guess work should be avoided. Any important statement that is not the direct result of the study should have a reference. The discussion should be limited to what has been studied. Some manuscripts have potential, however, due to the popularity of the journal and due to the large number of hits to the journal the prospective manuscripts have to be declined as they face tough competition from the even superior research manuscripts kept in a higher grade by the Editor-in-Chief.

However, if such a study is denied on these grounds, it sooner or later is able to find a fitting place in some other popular equally rated journal. Review articles are an attempt to sum up the current state of the research on a particular topic. Review manuscripts describe the recent major advances and discoveries in a particular area of research, significant gaps in the research, and current debates and ideas of where research might go next. Review articles are virtual gold mines if one wants to find out what the key articles are for a given topic.

The key difference that distinguishes research from review articles is that the former strictly presents facts, rather than serving as a letter of opinion or a summary of the existing scientific literature.

However, most scientific journals simultaneously publish such letters, as well as reviews of the body of existing research methods and findings. Major non-limiting causes for a review article being rejected have been discussed. Reviews are not just compilations; they are a mode of assessment of the previous researches done and are welcomed if the critical and judgmental opinions of the experts authors are incorporated. Simply collating the previous studies will not in any sense shape a review.

Sometimes it appears as if the author is simply propagating and promoting the previous studies without his own personal outlook and critical reviews. A thorough understanding of the study followed by critical comments will create an edge rather than simply reproducing the text verbatim. A review article needs time, even when it is an invited review, and the Editor-in-Chief gives at least three to four months to the authors for critical and extensive literature survey as well as for the right compilation of such articles.

More importantly, the literature survey done should include the most recent ones, as the reviews of the archaic studies might have already been published. Therefore, reproducing such published compilations will make lesser sense.

Preferably the reviewer selected for reviewing should have prior or present research experience in the subject, to be able to assess the manuscript meticulously. The study uses a carbon material but the focus is on something different. There is no new carbon science. It's incomplete. The article contains observations but is not a full study. It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work.

The study lacked clear control groups or other comparison metrics. The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated.

The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field. The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper. The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid. The data does not support the conclusions. The conclusions ignore large portions of the literature. It's simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.

Findings are incremental and do not advance the field. The work is clearly part of a larger study, chopped up to make as many articles as possible. It's incomprehensible. The language, structure, or figures are so poor that the merit can't be assessed.

Have a native English speaker read the paper. Even if you ARE a native English speaker. Need help?