rejection Archives - Enago Blog: Scientific Publication Help
How to write a scientific paper, How to publish in a research journal English Editing and Publication Support for Scientific Manuscripts

Posts Tagged ‘rejection’

03 November 2010  |  Posted in Rejection, Review Criteria  |  2 Comments »

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:

  1. Content of the article is not within the scope of the journal.
  2. Non-conformity with journal style, format or guidelines.
  3. Duplication or large overlap with existing work or apparent plagiarism.
  4. Results are not novel or significant enough; lead to only an incremental advance in field.
  5. Article is too specialized/in-depth or superficial.
  6. Limited interest to journal target audience.
  7. Poor quality of research.
  8. Results or interpretation are too preliminary or speculative.
  9. 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  • Good papers may not be published.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:

  1. Editor-in-chief makes the decision solely.
  2. One editor reaches a decision in consultation with other editors.
  3. 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.

13 October 2010  |  Posted in Rejection, Review Criteria  |  Comment on this post »

In evaluating a manuscript submitted for publication in a journal, a peer reviewer takes into account many factors. The primary considerations related to quality, originality and presentation are listed in the attached presentation. Based on these, suggestions are outlined, which would minimize the possibility of rejection.

The next post will describe the importance of numerical accuracy, particularly with respect to the treatment of errors.

This post was written by William Stevenson, an English editor with Enago based out of the USA.

11 October 2010  |  Posted in Journal requirements, Rejection  |  Comment on this post »

Researchers usually dread the prospect of having their manuscript rejected when it is submitted for publication, since it represents a big setback to their endeavors. There are myriad reasons for this, and it is essential to understand the fundamental considerations involved in maximizing the probability of acceptance. This post outlines the journal requirements and research aspects with an example of relevant data.

The next post will summarize the typical concerns that a peer reviewer may have, and some tips to reduce the chances of rejection.

This post was written by William Stevenson, an English editor with Enago based out of the USA.

04 October 2010  |  Posted in Response to Reviewer, Review Criteria  |  1 Comment »

Once peer reviewers respond with comments on an article submitted to a research journal, authors have to determine the most appropriate way of responding to their comments and recommendations, in order to ensure acceptance and eventual publication of the article. An outline of the strategies which may be adopted are described in the attached presentation. Evaluation criteria and referee reports have been treated in previous posts.

The next two posts will address the topic of rejection of manuscripts, reasons why this may happen, and how to minimize this possibility.

This post was written by William Stevenson, an English editor with Enago based out of the USA.



Research paper topics, editing proofreading serviceHow to publish in a research journal
Disclaimer : The opinions expressed here by the Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs' alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Crimson Interactive or any employee thereof. Crimson Interactive is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the Bloggers. While every caution has been taken to provide readers with the most accurate information and honest analysis, please use your discretion before taking any decisions based on the information in this blog. Author will not compensate you in any way whatsoever if you ever happen to suffer a loss/inconvenience/damage because of/while making use of information in this blog.

English Transcription | Englisch Korrektur | Revisão de Inglês | Tradutor Português Inglês | Revisão Inglês | 論文翻譯 | 英文編修 | 日英翻訳 | 英文校閲 | 영문교정 | 영문교정 | 英文校正・翻訳サービス | 日英翻訳会社