Article

Top 10 reasons a manuscript is rejected

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

... Of these papers, 16 discussed journal selection [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. A further 10 articles were identified from citations within the original 16 articles [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. ...
... Thirteen articles concerned themselves only with journal selection and included advice for authors in general [13][14][15][16]20,22,26,28,32,[34][35][36]38]. A further seven remarked on journal selection as part of a wider discussion of publishing [17][18][19]21,24,31,33]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective: Inadvertently submitting a paper to a journal that is unlikely to publish it is a waste of resources and ultimately delays dissemination of one's research. A high proportion of manuscripts are rejected by their author's first-choice journal. The aim of the present work was to review guidance provided within the literature for journal selection that might minimize the chance of manuscript rejection. We also consider papers that encompass more than one main medical science and describe the selection process that we used with a paper that was published in Cardiovascular Endocrinology. Methods: A database search (Embase, PubMed and Medworm) was performed for all articles published in the scientific literature providing guidance on journal selection. Articles were identified that either had journal selection as their principal topic or included journal selection as part of a broader discussion of publishing. The relative performance of four free-to-use, web-based applications that claim to provide guidance on journal selection was compared. Results: The searches identified 286 hits, of which 249 were in English. Of these papers, 16 discussed journal selection and a further 10 articles were identified from citations within the original 16 articles. Only one article described a comprehensive model for submission decision-making. Identification of appropriate candidate journals by various web-based applications was erratic, with the Jane database providing the most robust suggestions. Conclusion: Our work suggests that little attention has been focused in the scientific literature on the mechanisms that authors use to select a journal for their work. Nevertheless, scientists for the most part seem to have a good sense of where their papers are most likely to be accepted. Beyond ensuring that a manuscript fulfils all the target journal's requirements, the literature suggests that it is important to have an objective view of the scientific contribution or 'value' of your work.
... If a manuscript is rejected, do not give up Why are papers rejected? Sullivan (2002) Pierson (2004), Meffe (2006), Primack (2009) and Winck et al. (2011) report common reasons why papers are rejected, including that the paper does not fit within the scope of the journal, does not present new or relevant findings, problems in the research or the research design, lack of clarity as to how results and conclusions were achieved, incomplete or poorly formatted presentation, failure to submit a revision, revision failing to meet the standards of the journal, or poorly written manuscripts that do not communicate their message clearly. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this paper, we present a step-by-step guide on how to write a paper for successful publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We propose a ten-step approach to the entire process of paper writing from preparation, manuscript writing, and submission to the stages of peer-review and revision. The steps include defining paper objectives, authorship, journal selection, writing routines, requirements of manuscript sections, editing and proof-reading as well as how to communicate successfully in submission and review.
... Is the manuscript written in reasonably good English? 10,11 This is a rather long list but such a systematic evaluation will help you understand the journal's comments and revise the manuscript (for more exhaustive and structured lists of flaws, see [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] and the EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English). 21 Concurrently, share the review or the rejection letter with your co-authors (if the journal has not already done so) and tell them they will be involved in the revision process. ...
Article
Full-text available
Unfortunately, articles submitted to journals are rejected more frequently than is desirable. Journals themselves estimate that more than 60% of submitted articles are rejected without review (for top journals, the figure may even be 80%). Thus, whatever an article’s content or quality, an outright rejection should be expected right from the time of submission, and a reaction strategy defined beforehand. Each rejection should be carefully examined and fully understood before attempting any response. Here are some hints for beginners—or for edgy authors.
... There is therefore a need for authors to read and understand the aim and the scope of a journal before sending their articles as well as making sure their methodology is simple, logical and results are well presented. This is similar to what was reported by Pierson [9] and Sullivan [10] who in their articles documented that the wrong journal, suboptimal reporting of results and poor study design were among the leading reasons why manuscripts are not published. In the study by Turcotte et al. [11] the study design or methodology was the factor strongly associated with rejection. ...
Article
Full-text available
: Publication of articles in peer-reviewed journals is a major way to disseminate current information on various medical topics. We sought to identify the factors that act as determinants of the choice of a journal by researchers in a tertiary center as well as the hindrances and motivators to publish. Original Research Article Adoga et al.; JAMMR, 27(2): 1-8, 2018; Article no.JAMMR.41618 2 Materials and Methods: This was a cross sectional study performed at the Jos University Teaching Hospital a federal academic medical referral center that has specialist in the specialties of medicine, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics, gynecology and dentistry. We distributed a structured self-administered questionnaire to 81 members of the medical staff who were researchers working with the University of Jos and at the 2017 annual general meeting of The Medical and Dental Consultants Association of Nigeria (MDCAN) and consented to participate in the study. SPSS statistical software version 18 was used for data analysis. Results: We identified that the visibility of a journal, specialty covered, frequency of publication, recommendation by a colleague, and no costs to publish are the major factors that determine choice of journal for publication. Dissemination of knowledge was found to be the major motivator to publish. However lack of time and cost of publication are major hindrances to publication. Respondents said that a suitable academic environment, research mentorship, and promotion are major factors that would enhance and encourage publications. Conclusion: We identified that the visibility of a journal, specialty covered by the journal and frequency of publications are the major factors that determine choice of journal for publication. If the major hindrances to publication can be adequately addressed and the motivations to publications promoted, more articles would be published from this region where research and publications are currently under-represented.
... A journal may, after all, decide to reject a manuscript for any number of reasons (e.g. Ahlstrom, 2012;Sullivan, 2002), and if language is identified as non-native and negatively affecting the article, then it is also nearly impossible to disentangle the extent to which that language may be responsible for its ultimate rejection among a spectrum of other common contributing factors, such as faulty statistics (Bordage, 2001), poor study design (Pierson, 2012) and lack of knowledge of the literature (Belcher, 2007). ...
Article
Full-text available
While the number of research articles written by non-native speakers of English and published in English-medium international journals is on the rise, little is known about the extent to which that trend may be affecting the way in which English is used in that genre. To address this gap, a corpus comprising 192 non-native English articles published in 8 different international journals, spanning two different time periods (2000–2005 and 2010–2015), was compared with a parallel native-speaker corpus from the same journals and of the exact same characteristics. Analysis of the various word and phrase lists generated by the corpora show that there are a number of lexical items used by non-native authors that are used significantly less by native speakers — if at all. The identified items were shown to be used by several different nationalities, and consistently attested in the majority of the journals sampled. Moreover, comparison between the two time periods reveals that all items have become increasingly accepted over the years. It is concluded that this exploratory study merely scratches the surface in terms of the extent of ELF that may be present in international academic publication. Directions for future research are suggested.
... The peer review process is slow but is necessary to keep up the standard of the journal. The top causes for rejection during the process are enumerated below: [8,9]. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Peer review is a process in which a paper’s validity, originality and academic content are checked prior to publication in a good journal. In other words, it is ‘evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies’. The people who carry out this work are called reviewers or referees [1].
... Os diversos profissionais que escreveram artigos originais, editoriais e também revisões sobre as dificuldades e erros na redação de artigos científicos e sobre como publicar, mostram que este não é apenas um problema da Enfermagem, mas um problema que atinge todas as áreas do conhecimento (22-23) . Ressalta-se que escrever com vistas a publicar representa um processo árduo, com dificuldades e barreiras a serem superadas (11,192022) . Entre essas, observa-se erros e problemas citados pelos autores como sendo as causas principais de rejeição de artigos. ...
Article
It is a literature review, which had the purpose of summarizing the available evidences in researches on `the errors and difficulties found in the process of scientific publication' subject, as well as offering subsidies for the implementation of changes that promote the quality and the publication of information produced by the fields of sciences, such as nursing. The bibliographic survey was gathered from the LILACS and BDENF databases in the health virtual library website. The main errors and rejection factors of the submitted articles were: poor writing; out of date information and/or data; methodology failures, mistakes on the literature review; misspelling; insufficient and inadequate information; statistics problems and use of incorrect statistics. As main suggestions for authors to make the process of publication easier: the review of literature must be up to date; the fully understanding of the chosen methodology; the data analysis must be concise.
Article
This article discusses why many research projects that have been presented in abstract form are never published as full articles, and lists 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication in Respiratory Care. Some of these reasons are easily avoidable or readily overcome. Included in this category is submission of manuscripts that do not correspond to the kinds of articles the Journal publishes, either in subject matter or in format. Poor writing impedes peer review and is unlikely to prejudice editors in an author's favor, although it is seldom the primary reason for rejection. Common deficiencies in the methods, results, and discussion sections prevent initial acceptance for publication but are at least potentially amenable to correction. More serious are fundamental defects in study design, which although correctable at the inception of a project, often doom the paper once the study has been completed. Two problems that are especially unfortunate for authors and potential readers alike are failing to revise and resubmit a manuscript after initial peer review and never preparing a full manuscript in the first place, after presentation of the work in abstract form. This special issue of Respiratory Care and other cited publications offer practical resources for authors to use in overcoming each of these problems.
Article
Nurses take responsibility for reading information to update their professional knowledge and to meet relicensure requirements. However, nurses are less enthusiastic about writing for professional publication. This article explores the reluctance of nurses to write, the reasons why writing for publication is important to the nursing profession, the importance of mentoring to potential writers, and basic information about simplifying the writing process for novice writers. © 2002 by American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses.
Article
Someone once told me that you (as a writer) are only as good as your worst publication. I think the point of that statement is that you should not submit a paper unless you have put your best effort into writing it. The quality of a paper is often a reflection of the amount of time you spent planning and writing it. As detailed in this Commentary, writing for publication is a not a single step but a process that includes planning, writing, submitting, revising, resubmitting, and proofing. Developing good writing skills involves seeking mentors and opportunities to write. However, if you have the passion or desire to publish, it is possible to develop the "write" skills.
Article
Academics from Pacific Rim expanding circle countries are increasingly expected to produce English language research articles. Writing for reputable journals requires an understanding of these journal editors' expectations. This paper describes one way in which editors' expectations have been demonstrated interactively to staff and post-graduate students at an Indonesian university. The exercise comprises a sequence of role-plays representing different steps of the manuscript review process. The material used was carefully selected from a public database to provide a 'manuscript' that reflected participants expectations of a research article and reputable editorial and peer-review assessment of the 'manuscript'. In each role-play participants compare their own assessments with that of real-life reviewers and editors. Agricultural Science participants' assessment of the acceptability of the 'manuscript' was closer to editors' expectations as a result of the exercise (the shift from 0% to 78% agreement was significant, p < 0.001). For participants from a similar background in the Pacific Rim expanding circle, the exercise should be useful without modification. Substantially changed perceptions were also observed for individuals from Education, Chemistry and Environmental Science. Overall, participants reported increased understanding of the publication process and the expectations of centre journals. They also actively recommended the course to others.
Article
The aim of every academician and clinical dermatologist is to publish their research in reputed biomedical journals. But from conceptualization to completion, myriad shortcomings creep into the article and by the time it is ready for publication, by default and certainly not by design, the article discourse gets flawed, sometime fatally so. The endeavor of this article is to discuss these pitfalls from conceptualization, statistical machinations, authorial misconcepts, article structuring, and final journal selection. The article can function as a prophylactic checklist, albeit not comprehensive, by any prospective author and is an appreciation of the most oft repeated fallacies usually detected in publication submissions.
Chapter
This chapter presents some of the essential features of writing an article for publication, taking into account the barriers that some people feel about writing and how to overcome these. In every list and somewhere near the top in terms of ‘popularity’ are the following: lack of time, lack of ability, not understanding the publishing process, fear of criticism, and fear of rejection. Writing for publication in what are known as ‘scientific’ journals is mainly a technical process. The chapter presents the ‘four rules’ of writing. These include: read the guidelines, set targets and count words, seek critical review, and treat rejection as the beginning of the next submission. A common mistake is to set aside whole days, weeks or even months for writing. The writer's enemy is the blank page — or the blank screen in the case of the personal computer.
Article
The authors, all senior editors in the Books Division of American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., provide practical advice to authors who may be considering writing or editing a medical book. The authors summarize strategies for developing a book proposal and outline an approach to developing a focus for a book. They also list a number of common errors that authors frequently make when they develop a book proposal. The authors provide guidance on publishing research and discuss how authors can collaborate with a publisher's marketing department to publicize their book. By employing a systematic and well-considered approach to preparing a book proposal and writing or editing a book, authors may achieve professional success and personal satisfaction. Writing or editing a medical book requires a different series of steps than authoring a journal article.