Deutsch A fact that is not very widely known or universally accepted by authors is that manuscripts may be rejected without the due and expected peer review process. While manuscripts have to go through the peer review process in order to be published, they can be rejected without peer review. For high-impact, general science journals, the majority of submitted papers may be rejected in this manner. While this may appear surprising or disturbing, it is essential to understand the underlying reasons and the inevitability of this undesired aspect of the research publication process.
There could be many reasons for rejection without review:
- Content of the article is not within the scope of the journal.
- Non-conformity with journal style, format or guidelines.
- Duplication or large overlap with existing work or apparent plagiarism.
- Results are not novel or significant enough; lead to only an incremental advance in field.
- Article is too specialized/in-depth or superficial.
- Limited interest to journal target audience.
- Poor quality of research.
- Results or interpretation are too preliminary or speculative.
- Lack of clarity/conciseness in presentation.
Rejection without peer review is necessary for several reasons:
- The ratio of submitted to published manuscripts is large, especially for the best journals.
- There is a need to optimize resources available to journal, in terms of the time and effort of editors and reviewers.
- In the absence of this process, there would be delays in publication of all manuscripts.
- If all submitted manuscripts are sent for peer review, reviewers would be overburdened leading to frustration or lack of quality in peer review.
Some undesirable consequences are:
- Good papers may not be published.
- Authors may be unjustly dealt with due to the insufficient knowledge of editors or their poor judgment.
The mechanisms for rejection differ based on the journal:
- Editor-in-chief makes the decision solely.
- One editor reaches a decision in consultation with other editors.
- The decision is made at a joint meeting of the editorial board of the journal.
A good understanding of the above mentioned issues can help authors circumvent the possibility of having their manuscripts rejected without being evaluated by a reviewer. It is advisable to put the manuscript through a pre-submission peer-review process, either in the form of advice from colleagues or by utilizing professional services.
This post was written by William Stevenson, an English editor with Enago based out of the USA.
Most research journals employ the conventional approach to peer review. This involves evaluation of an article by one or more among a panel of recognized experts in the field who are nominated by the editorial board of the journal. While this method has worked quite well over the years, alternative strategies have been or are being explored. The basic goal is to determine whether and how improvements can be implemented in the traditional methods of peer review. Some of the new approaches are described below.
Pre-submission peer review
This has been an integral part of the publication process in the form of feedback obtained by the principal author from co-authors or known experts in the field. This process has also been formalized in certain subject areas by setting up customized pre-print repositories like arXiv. Recently, professional pre-submission peer review services have also been introduced which offer researchers the opportunity to improve on the papers prior to submission.
Commentary following publication
Readers are allowed to post their comments or thoughts about the article online along with the paper. This process obviously has to be moderated to weed out unsuitable comments. Publishers like BioMed Central and the British Medical Journal invite post-publication comments.
Online peer review
Among others, the journal Nature has experimented with this system. The procedure worked in parallel with external peer review, with the manuscripts being placed on an open website, where individuals who identified themselves could comment on the paper. All comments were taken into account by the editorial board in reaching a decision regarding publication.
Interactive review and discussions
In this method (adopted by the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics), manuscripts are pre-screened by the editorial board before posting online, where anonymous reviewers, other individuals and also authors can put up their comments and responses during a specified period. Following this, revision of the manuscript based on the comments follows.
Mix of pre- and post-publication review
A combination of pre- and post-publication review has been adopted by PLoS One. The first stage involves evaluation of the article by members of the editorial board. Following publication, readers can post their comments in different forms: annotations, ratings or debates.
A more detailed discussion about the various approaches described above can be found in the in-depth analysis of peer review by Irene Hames. While these methodologies have met with different degrees of success, and have been implemented to varying extents, conventional post-submission (or pre-publication) peer review remains by far the predominant mode employed by most journals.
This post was written by William Stevenson, an English editor with Enago based out of the USA.
Tags: alternative, approach, commentary, discussion, Interactive review and discussions, Online peer review, peer review process, peer-review, pre- and post-publication review, pre-submission, Pre-submission peer review