Abstract
Rejections from journals are a way of life for both novice and experienced authors. While disappointing, the researcher has to make important decisions about the manuscript’s future. Submission to another journal is an option. A common question is whether the author should put the effort toward revising the rejected manuscript first. If you are in this position, this editorial aims to help weigh your options.
Many journals now screen manuscripts to determine the ones that should receive peer review. If a manuscript is rejected before receiving peer review, authors may receive a notice without any comments about the paper. In general, authors will not be able to get information by contacting the journal. In this situation, the author should reflect or seek counsel on possible reasons for rejection. Some papers just don’t fit particular journals. If authors are aware of a significant problem with the paper, which they hoped the journal would not notice, this early rejection could be a hint to address the problem.
Most manuscripts receive peer review, and rejection messages here include narrative comments from the reviewers. Authors may be tempted to submit the manuscript to another journal without considering these reviewers’ comments. This tactic is unwise for several reasons. The same reviewers may review the manuscript for the next journal; you will annoy them if their comments were not considered. Also, new reviewers may make similar comments as the original reviewers. Because the peer review process is time intensive, it would be unfortunate to waste others’ effort by not revising manuscripts.
Before proceeding with work, take a break! Decisions about revisions are best delayed a few days, or even weeks, to allow time to resolve emotional reactions to the rejection message.
Once the author is mentally ready, it is time to look at the comments again. Of course, manuscript authors are not obligated to address every reviewer concern prior to submission to a new journal. The author should definitely address issues of clarity, formatting, and accuracy. Improvements in editing are often easy to fix. Suggested additional topics for the discussion section can be incorporated in the text. Problems noted by reviewers that are not remediable with revision could be mentioned in the limitations section of the discussion. To get a clear perspective, novice lead authors might consult with coauthors to determine which other comments to ignore.
Even with a plan and a fresh attitude, authors may begin to doubt the value of their work when they receive rejection notices. It is important to remember that even the work of the best authors is rejected sometimes. Persevere, and your research will get published.