(LogOut/ Improve the chances of your manuscripts acceptance by learning how to prepare a manuscript for journal submission and handle the peer review process. Your perseverance will be the key to turn your rejected manuscript into a successful publication. 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. By closing this message, you consent to our, Hello, {{ user.first_name }} {{ user.last_name }}, https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/submission-and-navigating-peer-review/5-options-to-consider-after-article-rejection, Z')" data-type="collection" title="Products A->Z" target="_self" href="/collection/products-a-to-z">Products A->Z. If you do not agree, but you get the same polite rejection advice from multiple agents, seriously and objectively consider if that part of your manuscript needs work. This will help to neutralize the initial emotional response you may have and allow you to determine what the reviewers are asking for in a more objective manner. If so, Id like to hear how methodological soundness would be judged in the humanities since there are so many competing methodologies. I have over the course of 600-plus submissions revised a story after a single form rejection, for example. In short, major revisions means youve got work to do on your manuscript, but youre still very much in the game. ? Ask yourself if the project needs to be reworked into a different kind of article. Do not respond to a form rejection, and never respond in anger to a form rejection. It is so Its a good idea to wait 24 to 72 hours before responding to a decision letterthen re-read the email. Ask your co-authors or colleagues who read your paper prior to submission what they think of the requested changes. In this rejection, your manuscript receives two or more negative reviews from outside reviewers. This rejection letter acts as a provisional-acceptance letter. In this letter, the editor requires you to make relatively minor changes before resubmission. In my field three weeks for minor and six weeks for major revisions seems common. We (ASCE) eliminated it years ago but the editors wanted it back. If you still find yourself confused as to what needs fixing, consider hiring a professional freelance editor like me to read the agents feedback, your manuscript, and provide developmental editing. Revise, resubmit, repeat. It is clear to me that many do, and equally clear that some dont. . At least they can get on with their lives. A Reject and resubmit decision is very similar to Revise and resubmit. Feeling ticked that all of the feedback was ignored, the reviewer either declines the invitation to review and tells the editor why, or accepts the invitation and tells the author that he/she is still recommending the paper be declined. A very few papers rejected after revisions. As an aside, is it normal for people regularly submitting to journals to get the revise & resubmit response? Scholarship being what scholarship is, and academic reviewers being who academic reviewers are, it is rare for a paper to be accepted with no revisions requested. The editors and reviewers are tired of seeing the paper and they accept the paper as passable. A revise and resubmit is not a conditional acceptance. Once you identify the reason then the next step is to solve that problem. //-->
Franklin Police Arrests,
Mater Dei Football Recruits 2022,
Articles R