Rejection Of Manuscripts Research Articles

"Expensive Sisters".

This perspective highlights a growing and concerning trend within the scientific publishing community: the increasing incidence of manuscript rejections within twenty-four hours of submission without peer review, followed by offers of transfer to a sister journal with a high article processing fee. Recommendations to address such issues, including increased transparency in the manuscript review process, the establishment of more robust editorial guidelines, and the promotion of equitable publishing opportunities regardless of financial capability have also been proposed.

Manuscript rejection: The whys and wherefores

Manuscript rejection: The whys and wherefores

Editorial: Navigating excellence: understanding and overcoming common causes of manuscript rejections in logistics and supply chain management research

Editorial: Navigating excellence: understanding and overcoming common causes of manuscript rejections in logistics and supply chain management research

Publishing in premier journals with high impact factor and Q1 journals: Dos and Don'ts

AbstractThe evolving landscape of the academic world has ushered in a plethora of challenges and opportunities for researchers. While there are undoubtedly monetary incentives and fringe benefits for those who actively engage in publishing, the journey toward acceptance by a premier journal is often arduous and time‐consuming. Considering this context, this paper endeavors to dissect prevailing trends, elucidate the reasons behind manuscript rejections, and furnish a compendium of strategies and insights aimed at augmenting the likelihood of acceptance while mitigating the probability of rejection.

The Influence of Knowledge Acquisition on Research Productivity of Bottom-Level Academics

This study was undertaken to examine the influence of knowledge acquisition on research productivity of bottom-level academics. A total of 179 bottom-level academics from three universities located in Ogun State were surveyed using a questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis. The findings suggest that the surveyed academics predominantly acquire knowledge through journals, books, databases and online webpages, and they do so to a high extent. They published most of their publications in learned journals, while their publications in conference papers and chapters in books were low. However, they faced challenges such as time constraints, knowledge hoarding by colleagues, and difficulties in organising knowledge from various sources when acquiring knowledge. When embarking on research publishing activities, they encountered challenges like insufficient research facilities, time constraints and manuscript rejection. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) evaluation of the model indicated that knowledge acquisition significantly affects research productivity. These insights could help policymakers and university management understand the factors affecting the research productivity of bottom-level academics.

Interpreting manuscript rejections

Interpreting manuscript rejections

Advice from the editor’s desk: an introductory guide to success in education publishing

PurposeThis study aims to investigate basic/core principles and practical tools behind successful manuscript writing for education journals. Drawing on the insights of journal editors and related literature, this paper seeks to clarify the craft of preparing quality manuscripts to meet the expectations of academic journals.Design/methodology/approachThis paper uses an interpretivist framework by incorporating a qualitative analysis of the literature with the authors’ experiences to identify key principles and issues in academic publishing. These narratives provide an empirical basis for understanding the mechanics and essence of effective manuscript crafting. The study integrates theoretical knowledge with actionable strategies, focusing on identifying the objectives and processes of writing, determining common challenges and directing readers toward comprehensive resources for guidance in article writing.FindingsThis study reveals that manuscript rejections often transcend technical shortcomings. Issues that are central to nonacceptance include misalignment with a journal’s thematic focus, absence of a coherent and persuasive argument, methodological weaknesses and insufficient evidence underpinning the assertions. Successful publication depends not just on data presentation and adherence to submission norms but also on developing a narrative that enriches the prevailing scholarly discourse. Our findings advocate for manuscripts that strike an appropriate balance between lucidity and analytical rigor, avoid superfluous technical language and express a mix of assertiveness and scholarly modesty.Originality/valueAlthough there is literature on academic writing, very few recent articles have been uncovered that probe the intricacies of crafting education manuscripts and point to resources.

Recommendations for reviewing manuscripts of the article types "project report" and "how to" for the GMS Journal for Medical Education.

This position paper of the Committee on Methodology in Educational Research sets out the criteria for the acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts of the article types project report and how to in the GMS Journal for Medical Education, as well as outlining the development of these criteria. In a workshop with writers, reviewers, and editors, we formulated and discussed common core elements for articles. We did this by consulting the journal's editorial board on the basis of guidelines for authors and reviewers from other journals and by using examples of articles considered less or more successful. From this, we derived specific aspects to be addressed and rejection criteria for the respective article types. We have identified the target group, relevance, justification, and implication as the common core elements for both article types. We have also derived specific aspects to be addressed and rejection criteria from these core elements for each article type. A manuscript lacking core elements will be rejected. If aspects are not described sufficiently or are not clearly comprehensible, the manuscript must be revised.

System's 50th anniversary special issue in conversation with Andrew D. Cohen

Andrew D. Cohen has a long history with System. Drawn to the journal by its publication of research conducted internationally, he published his first article with System in 1980 and continues to publish and review for the journal today. In this article celebrating System's 50th anniversary, Andrew is interviewed by editor Nathan Thomas. They discuss Andrew's pathway to academia, his experience as an academic, and his contributions to System spanning 43+ years. The article concludes with Andrew's vision for the type of studies he would like to see published in his two main areas of interest: language learner strategies and pragmatics. He also offers words of encouragement for authors navigating the road of manuscript review, revision, and rejection.

Regretful Resolution: Manuscript Rejection and Pathways Forward

Regretful Resolution: Manuscript Rejection and Pathways Forward

Why do manuscripts submitted to the Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation get rejected?

The study aimed to examine the reasons for the rejection of manuscripts, considering the increased rejection rates of our journal of up to 73% in 2022, and help authors realize what the editors and referees are paying attention to while assessing the manuscript. In this retrospective study, original articles, case reports, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses submitted and rejected to the Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation were searched between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2022. After reviewing the referee's evaluations and editorial opinions for all rejected articles, the reasons for rejection were classified under three main headings: journal, manuscript, and ethical issues. The manuscript issues were detailed under 11 subheadings. A total of 1,293 rejected submissions were reviewed. Of these, 35% were rejected at the editorial stage, while 65% were rejected after peer review. Thirty-three submissions were rejected for ethical reasons, 168 were out of the journal's field of interest, and 1,092 (84%) submissions were rejected for reasons related to the manuscript. The three most common reasons for rejection were protocol/methodology errors (44%), lack of contribution to the literature (41%), and lack of adequate discussion (40%). Before starting the studies, supporting the hypotheses with the current literature review, planning with the right protocol, and interpreting the findings in the discussion will facilitate the acceptance of the manuscripts to our journal.

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Manuscript.

The methods section of a manuscript is one of the most important parts of a research paper because it provides information on the validity of the study and credibility of the results. Inadequate description of the methods has been reported as one of the main reasons for manuscript rejection. The methods section must include sufficient detail so that others could repeat the study and reproduce the results. The structure of the methods section should flow logically and chronologically. There are multiple components of methods sections, including study design, materials used, study procedures, and data analysis. Each element must be adequately described and thoroughly detailed to provide an understanding of how the results were obtained and how to interpret the findings. Studies that involved humans or animals must include an ethics statement of approval from the appropriate governing body. The methods section should explain how subjects were identified and should state inclusion and exclusion criteria. All materials used to complete the study should be described in detail, including equipment, drugs, gases, chemicals, treatments, interventions, or other items. Study procedures should outline all steps taken to obtain the results and clearly state the outcome measures. Subheadings might be helpful for organizing the methods section into subsections when there is a considerable amount of information to report. A well-written methods section will guide the reader through the research process and provide adequate information to evaluate study validity and reproduce the work. The purpose of this paper is to provide guidance for writing the methods section of a manuscript.

Norecopa: A global knowledge base of resources for improving animal research and testing.

There are good ethical, legal and scientific reasons for ensuring that our use of animals in research and testing is limited to the lowest number of animals, and that those which are used are treated as humanely as possible, while at the same time providing reliable, reproducible and translatable data which is adequately reported. Unfortunately, there is widespread evidence that there is room for improvement in all these areas. This paper describes the Norecopa website, which offers links to global resources which can be used to resolve these issues. Much of the website content is linked to the PREPARE guidelines for planning any research or testing which appears to need animals. Attention to detail on all steps of the pathway from early planning to manuscript submission should lead to better science, improved animal welfare, and fewer health and safety accidents. This will also minimize the chances of manuscript rejection due to inadequate planning, avoiding a waste of human resources and animal lives.

What does rejection look like? A photovoice study on emotions and coping regarding manuscript rejection.

The study aimed to illustrate the emotions related to manuscript rejection experiences and coping strategies. We conducted individual interviews and focus groups with academics receiving at least one rejection in the last year using the photovoice method. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis based on the pictures and interviews. The findings indicated that the participants had negative emotional responses to desk rejections and peer-review rejections. We observed that the participants resorted to three strategies; avoidant strategies, neutral (neither approach nor avoidant) strategies, and approach strategies to cope with manuscript rejection. Avoidant strategies consisted of denial, self-distraction, and venting, while approach strategies included acceptance, support, planning, and positive reframing. Our study revealed that neutral strategies had humor as the only dimension. It also highlighted the significance of addressing the emotions and opinions of academics with rejection experiences. The findings also guide the coping strategies. The implications include awareness-raising activities at both individual and institutional levels.

Language Barriers in Organismal Biology: What Can Journals Do Better?

In the field of organismal biology, as in much of academia, there is a strong incentive to publish in internationally recognized, highly regarded, English-language journals to promote career advancement. This expectation has created a linguistic hegemony in scientific publishing, whereby scholars for whom English is an additional language face additional barriers to achieving the same scientific recognition as scholars who speak English as a first language. Here, we surveyed the author guidelines of 230 journals in organismal biology with impact factors of 1.5 or greater for linguistically inclusive and equitable practices and policies. We looked for efforts that reflect first steps toward reducing barriers to publication for authors globally, including the presence of statements that encouraged submissions from authors of diverse nationalities and backgrounds, policies regarding manuscript rejection based on perceived inadequacies of the English language, the existence of bias-conscious reviewer practices, whether translation and editing resources or services are available, allowance for non-English abstracts, summaries, or translations, and whether journals offer license options that would permit authors (or other scholars) to translate their work and publish it elsewhere. We also directly contacted a subset of journals to verify whether the information on their author guidelines page accurately reflects their policies and the accommodations they would make. We reveal that journals and publishers have made little progress toward beginning to recognize or reduce language barriers. Counter to our predictions, journals associated with scientific societies did not appear to have more inclusive policies compared to non-society journals. Many policies lacked transparency and clarity, which can generate uncertainty, result in avoidable manuscript rejections, and necessitate additional time and effort from both prospective authors and journal editors. We highlight examples of equitable policies and summarize actions that journals can take to begin to alleviate barriers to scientific publishing.

Submit It Again! Learning From Rejected Manuscripts.

Rejection of manuscripts by academic journals can be devastating for the early-career family medicine faculty members. Taking experience from teaching early-career underrepresented in medicine faculty members writing and scholarship skills, we identify and explain five lessons to be learned from rejected manuscripts. The five lessons are: (1) rejections teach journal scope, (2) rejections teach process, (3) rejection should lead to resubmission, (4) rejections reflect writing effort, and (5) rejections happen to papers, not authors. Early-career family medicine faculty can use these lessons for reassurance and to adapt behaviors to remain in the scholarship arena.

How Can We Help You Get Your Paper Accepted?

How Can We Help You Get Your Paper Accepted?

Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Community members may provide useful perspectives on manuscripts submitted to medical journals. To determine the impact of community members reviewing medical journal manuscripts. Randomized controlled trial involving 578 original research manuscripts submitted to two medical journals from June 2018 to November 2021. Twenty-eight community members who were trained, supervised, and compensated. A total of 289 randomly selected control manuscripts were reviewed by scientific reviewers only. And 289 randomly selected intervention manuscripts were reviewed by scientific reviewers and one community member. Journal editorial teams used all reviews to make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts. Usefulness of reviews to editors, content of community reviews, and changes made to published articles in response to community reviewer comments. Editor ratings of community and scientific reviews averaged 3.1 and 3.3, respectively (difference 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1 to 0.3), on a 5-point scale where a higher score indicates a more useful review. Qualitative analysis of the content of community reviews identified two taxonomies of themes: study attributes and viewpoints. Study attributes are the sections, topics, and components of manuscripts commented on by reviewers. Viewpoints are reviewer perceptions and perspectives on the research described in manuscripts and consisted of four major themes: (1) diversity of study participants, (2) relevance to patients and communities, (3) cultural considerations and social context, and (4) implementation of research by patients and communities. A total of 186 community reviewer comments were integrated into 64 published intervention group articles. Viewpoint themes were present more often in 66 published intervention articles compared to 54 published control articles (2.8 vs. 1.7 themes/article, difference 1.1, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.8). With training, supervision, and compensation, community members are able to review manuscripts submitted to medical journals. Their comments are useful to editors, address topics relevant to patients and communities, and are reflected in published articles. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03432143.

Insufficient Addressing Responses is One of The Main Reasons Behind the Rejection of Manuscripts Publishing in a High Impact Journals

Scientific research is an important reason that indicates the progress of countries and the general scientific level. This study aims to research and verify some of the causes and obstacles that the Iraqi authors face and prevent them or lead rejection of their manuscripts from publishing in high-impact journals. Information was collected by questionnaires surveyed and some phone interviews with chief- editors of Iraqi journals subjected to the Scopus classification. The results showed that there are many reasons behind the rejection of research in high-impact journals، these reasons include several causes such as poor quality of the English language، which is known as a language of publication in Iraq for the science field، as well as the lack of experience and the inefficiency of the authors' responses on the evaluators' comments.، these were the main three reason which obstructing the publishing process of Iraqi researchers.

Rejection Resilience-Quantifying Faculty Experience With Submitting Papers Multiple Times After a Rejection.

Navigating manuscript rejection can be demoralizing and lonely. This study demonstrates how common manuscript rejection is among faculty of all academic ranks in hopes to normalize rejection and open conversations about rejection in mentorship.