Without additional information, I would take this response as a full rejection. It is possible that the editor finds your topic relevant, but that Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Another problem being reported by journal editors is that authors are ignoring reviewer comments. A Tale of ThreePublishers, Follow Aeryn Rudel's Rejectomancy on WordPress.com. If not, but more than one agent has mentioned the same concern, reassess your manuscript to determine if there arent some weak links you havent fixed yet. The higher-tier form rejection can be hard to recognize unless you know what youre looking for and you have a little experience with the market in question. Youll do nothing more than become fodder for the water cooler. Still, reject-and-resubmit isnt too bad a way of dealing with papers, I agree, so long as there is some continuity maintained with the resubmission. The main reason was the feeling among editors that the resubmissions were rarely really re-written in whole, and the result could be a very drawn out process of over a year that wore down the authors, reviewers, and the editor. Therefore, make the recommended changes before submitting. We seemed to be leading authors on in instances where they eventually got re-rejected anyway, or at best, had a just passable paper after a lot of time and work from the reviewers, editor, and editorial office. The main reasons that papers can be rejected at this stage are: The manuscript does not fall within the Aims and Scope of the journal: The work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journal, The manuscript is incomplete: For example, the article contains observations but is not a full study or it discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work, A clear hypothesis or research aim was not established or the question behind the work is not of interest in the field, The goal of the research was over-ambitious, and hence it could not realistically be achieved. For accepted articles, outright rejection is not the solution. I have to admit that I have advised editors to lean toward rejection over required revisions for a number of reasons. Its a long wait as they only publish twice a year in the Spring and the Fall. Android 10 visual changes: New Gestures, dark theme and more, Marvel The Eternals | Release Date, Plot, Trailer, and Cast Details, Married at First Sight Shock: Natasha Spencer Will Eat Mikey Alive!, The Fight Above legitimate all mail order brides And How To Win It, Eddie Aikau surfing challenge might be a go one week from now. Then, work on the more difficult ones, such as performing additional experiments, fixing tables, adding figures, and rearranging paragraphs. The level of competition for acceptance and page space within the journal, The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal (submitting the same paper to multiple journals at the same time is not allowed), The manuscript is insufficiently well prepared; for example, lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references, and tables and figures, The English is not of sufficient quality to allow a useful peer review to take place, The figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read, The article does not conform to the most important aspects of the specific journals Author Guidelines, 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 arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid, The conclusions ignore large portions of the literature, It is archival, or of marginal interest to the field; it is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors, Findings are incremental and do not significantly advance the field, The work is clearly part of a larger study, chopped up to make as many articles as possible (so-called salami publication), Make a list of all the reviewer comments and number them, requests for clarification of existing text, addition of text to fill a gap in the paper, or additional experimental details, requests to reanalyze, re-express, or reinterpret existing data, requests for additional experiments or further proof of concept, Note down the action/response that you plan to undertake for each comment. Below Ill list various types of rejections, the chance Ill resubmit the story after such a rejection, and then a short explanation of why. I agree that time to first decision is important but the public stats dont show this at all.. One would argue that it would need to be significantly different to the original manuscript and addressed the main reviewers comments otherwise the same reviewers are likely (from your submitted keywords) and the same outcome. A simple sentence or two explaining why the change was not made will typically suffice. By declining, we will only use cookies to track your authentication session and consent preferences. What is the difference between minor and major revision? You have the following options: Make the recommended changes and resubmit to the same journal: This option could well be your top choice if you are keen to publish in a particular journal and if the editor has indicated that they will accept your paper if revisions are made. Editors' advice to rejected authors: Just try, try again. This time, yes, absolutely send a brief email thanking the agent for their consideration and feedback. Papers having two reviewers recommendations to accept and minor revision have much greater chance of acceptance (more than 98%) than papers receiving two reviewers recommendations that include a major revision and a reject or two rejections (which results in an acceptance rate of less than 5%): (Figure 1). Often as not, the answer is no, and I send the story right back out. Move on. Constructive Personal Rejection Resubmit 50%. The title of the revised article should remain the same as for the original article, except where suggested specifically by reviewers. The closest I've gotten to a direct in was a request to shorten an already brief manuscript so it could fit as a brief communication versus a full-length. Kbler-Ross, E., & Kessler, D. (2005). Chefs de Cuisine: Perspectives from Publishings Top Table Jasmin Lange, Guest Post: Start at the Beginning The Need for Research Practice Training. Reviewers very rarely receive formal compensation beyond recognition from the editors of the effort they have expended. WebIf your submission is rejected, you may be able to revise and resubmit your request for a second review, or you may be able to appeal the ACCs decision. Higher-Tier Form Rejection Resubmit 90%. But, there can be a resignation to accept an okay paper at this point too. Revise, resubmit, repeat. Papers will be rejected. Who disregards peers advice, etc. Retrieved July 1, 2020, from https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html. In many fields, the reviewer pool is smaller than you would think. The papers were criticized for having too short a review period. In that case, Ill send the story out again. 2023 Caniry - All Rights Reserved Tell me about it in the comments. For journals that are looking to publish top tier content, passable is not good enough. All Answers (17) Taruna it is possible to resubmit. ? The last resort is to start decreasing the amount of time given to authors to make revisions. I Clearly explain any suggestions you disagree with and why (and give evidence to show this). //-->