Rejection Of Manuscripts Research Articles

Personal Manuscript Acceptance Rates: Metrics for Self-assessment in Scholarship.

There is no established baseline for how frequently clinical researchers personally encounter manuscript rejection, making it difficult for faculty to put their own evolving experience in context. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of obtaining personal acceptance per submission (APS) and acceptance per manuscript (APM) rates for individual faculty members. We performed a cross-section survey pilot study of clinical faculty members of two departments (family medicine and pediatrics), in one academic health center in the academic year 2017-2018. The survey asked participants to report the number of attempted submissions required per journal article they have had accepted in the prior 2 years as well as any submissions that did not lead to publication. Sixty-eight of 136 eligible faculty (50%) completed the questionnaire. Academic clinicians in the sample eventually published 80% of the manuscripts submitted, with 39% of papers rejected per submission attempt. Associate professors had the highest APS (0.71) and APM (0.88). In this pilot, we demonstrated the feasibility of retrospectively collecting data that could identify baseline manuscript acceptance rates and were able to generate department averages and rank specific averages for manuscript acceptance and rejection. We confirmed that rejection is common among academic clinicians. The APS and APM can be used by academic clinicians to track their own progress from day one of their publishing careers as a method of self-assessment, rather than having to wait for citations to accumulate.

Academic Writing for Publication Purposes: The Infelicities of Style

Low level of literacy of students, postgraduate students and university staff results in infelicities of style in Russian scientific papers and abstracts that might lead to manuscript rejection for publication in international journals. The author addresses the task of readability improvement of abstracts and scientific papers written by university staff members from technical and natural sciences departments. Sentence and text readability is determined not only by the number of words, i.e. the length of a sentence but also by the sentence structure and its grammar and lexical structure. The infelicities of style are caused by differences in scientific discourse between Russian and English languages. In particular, these might be nominalization, complex sentence structure, and wide use of Passive Voice in Russian sentences. Bilingual education is considered as the process of trainees’ introduction to the English-speaking world culture based upon matching Russian and English stylistic features. As the result the trainees realize the necessity of pre-translation adaptation of their texts. The author suggests some ways of pre-translation preparation of a sentence: shortening the sentence length up to 10-20 words by eliminating non-informative words and splitting a complex sentence into two or three according to the rule: one idea = one sentence. Some examples illustrate how chains of nouns in the genitive case could be substituted with other structures. Special attention is paid to parallel structures usage and eliminating non-informative words. In this way Russian authors will be able to write concise and clear texts in Russian and English in accordance with the accepted international language conventions.

YI02.05 Principles to Get Your Paper Published

Scientific publication is the backbone of academic research. Findings by investigators need to be disseminated to the community so that results can influence human health and well-being as well lay groundwork for future research. In spite of the central role of publishing in academic life described above, there are very few formal courses or seminars teaching academics, particularly physician scientists on how to publish their work. The table below outlines reasons for rejection of manuscripts, coming out of a survey of a number of journal editors Using information from this survey as a starting point, we will discuss the “fatal flaws” that lead to outright rejection of manuscripts, and outline strategies on how to write a manuscript of high impact, which is likely to be accepted for publication.

Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to analyze the publication path of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in the field of anesthesiology and pain registered in the PROSPERO database. Study Design and SettingWe analyzed characteristics of SRs registered in PROSPERO from its inception to May 2017 and their publication status in August 2018. We surveyed corresponding authors of unpublished SRs about accuracy of PROSPERO status and reasons for nonpublication. ResultsAfter screening 1,408 records from PROSPERO database, we found that the majority had “ongoing” (76.3%) and “completed not published” (9.2%) status. Survey of authors showed that most of the records had not been updated (82.4%, 526/638); SR had already been published in 75.2% (396/526), and work on SR had been discontinued in 7.8% (41/526) of cases. In total, based on PROSPERO status, survey of authors, and database searches, 53.6% (742/1,384) of SRs had been published within a period of 1.3 years or more following their registration. Main reasons for discontinuing work on SR were publication of an SR with similar or same topic by another author team and rejection of SR manuscript. ConclusionOnly 16.3% of PROSPERO records had accurate status, and 46.4% of SRs were still unpublished. Further steps to ensure accuracy of PROSPERO status are needed, along with developing strategies for improvement of SR production process.

Performance Feedback in Academic Journals: The Effect of Impact Factor on Manuscript Rejection Rates

Is there a direct relationship between Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and Manuscript Rejection Rates (MRR)? Given the traditional use of JIF as a performance indicator, we revisit this question from p...

Xin‐Yuan Liu

Xin‐Yuan Liu

How I became easy prey.

I was nursing my wounds from my latest manuscript rejection when the email arrived. I was about 2 years into my assistant professorship, with the tenure clock running at full speed, and the pressure to publish was immense. I knew that navigating rejection was part of the job, but I was also starting to wonder whether my study—a modest project designed to be feasible with the minimal lab space and skeleton crew of a new professor—would ever see the light of day. So when I received the email from a newly launched journal inviting me to publish with them, I saw a lifeline. That's when my troubles started. ![Figure][1] ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER > “My stomach tightened. I had fallen prey to a predatory journal.” I had heard about “predatory” journals during my graduate training but had no experience with them. The email appeared legitimate. It spelled my name correctly, referenced some of my previous work, and used correct grammar. The journal wasn't on Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers. I thought I had done my due diligence. I submitted my manuscript. Shortly after, I celebrated the first round of favorable reviews. Things were going great—or so I thought. Maybe it was the daily emails requesting my revisions, but something started to seem off. I rechecked Beall's list—still nothing. I found that a postdoc at my institution was listed on the journal's website as a member of the editorial board. I sent him an email asking about his experience with the journal, hoping he would confirm its legitimacy. That's when the roof started to cave in. My colleague explained that he had never actually worked with the journal. He eventually realized that it wasn't a reputable publication, but he hadn't been able to get his name removed from the website. Then a trusted mentor suggested that I check up on the parent publisher. There it was, on Beall's infamous list. My stomach tightened. I had fallen prey to a predatory journal. I worried that publishing in such a journal could hurt my tenure case and harm my reputation as a scientist. I asked the journal to withdraw my manuscript from review, figuring that was the logical next step. They demanded that I justify my decision and debated my right to withdraw, insisting that I pay at least $400 to do so. After an exchange of emails—akin to “no way,” “yes way,” and “no way”—and one phone call demanding payment, I informed the journal that we were at an impasse and diverted all correspondence to the trash. I submitted the manuscript to a demonstrably legitimate journal, believing that I had put the mess behind me. That is, until a few months later, when I noticed an email in my spam folder from the predatory journal congratulating me on my recent publication and requesting payment. I googled the title of my manuscript and found that it had indeed been published. I was horrified: My manuscript had been in review at the legitimate journal for months, and this revelation would jeopardize its publication. To my relief, the editor of the legitimate journal agreed to continue the review process, provided my article was withdrawn from the predatory journal. I confronted the predatory journal again and received another demand for $400, this time for removing my manuscript from the online publication. This was pure extortion, and I refused. Bewildered about how to move forward, I again reached out to my mentor. His email reply simply read “Not good,” and we got to work on a plan. After a week's worth of back and forth correspondence, including a document on official university letterhead and threats of legal action and wide exposure, we finally persuaded the journal to withdraw the work and dismiss the fees. However, 4 weeks later, the manuscript is still available online. I fell into this trap because of my ignorance. I now ignore every invitation to publish my research in any journal. And I know to be wary of any offer that comes via email, whether from journals or international conferences. After all, time spent on manuscript hostage negotiations doesn't count toward tenure. [1]: pending:yes

A protocol for developing reporting guidelines for laboratory studies in Endodontology.

Laboratory-based research studies are the most common form of research endeavour and make up the majority of manuscripts that are submitted for publication in the field of Endodontology. The scientific information derived from laboratory studies can be used to design a wide range of subsequent studies and clinical trials and may have translational potential to benefit clinical practice. Unfortunately, the majority of laboratory-based articles submitted for publication fail the peer-review step, because unacceptable flaws or substantial limitations are identified. Even when apparently well-conducted laboratory-based articles are peer-reviewed, they can often require substantial corrections prior to the publication. It is apparent that some authors and reviewers may lack the training and experience to have developed a systematic approach to evaluate the quality of laboratory studies. Occasionally, even accepted manuscripts contain limitations that may compromise interpretation of data. To help authors avoid manuscript rejection and correction pitfalls, and to aid editors/reviewers to evaluate manuscripts systematically, the purpose of this project is to establish and publish quality guidelines for authors to report laboratory studies in the field of Endodontology so that the highest standards are achieved. The new guidelines will be named-'Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology' (PRILE). A steering committee was assembled by the project leads to develop the guidelines through a five-phase consensus process. The committee will identify new items as well as review and adapt items from existing guidelines. The items forming the draft guidelines will be reviewed and refined by a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG). The items will be evaluated by the PDG on a nine-point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PRILE face-to-face consensus meeting group (PFCMG) formed by 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. This will be subject to final approval by the steering committee. The approved PRILE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, presented at congresses/meetings, and be freely available on a dedicated website. Feedback and comments will be solicited from researchers, editors and peer reviewers, who are invited to contact the steering committee with comments to help them update the guidelines periodically.

Best Practices in Data Collection and Preparation: Recommendations for Reviewers, Editors, and Authors

We offer best-practice recommendations for journal reviewers, editors, and authors regarding data collection and preparation. Our recommendations are applicable to research adopting different epistemological and ontological perspectives—including both quantitative and qualitative approaches—as well as research addressing micro (i.e., individuals, teams) and macro (i.e., organizations, industries) levels of analysis. Our recommendations regarding data collection address (a) type of research design, (b) control variables, (c) sampling procedures, and (d) missing data management. Our recommendations regarding data preparation address (e) outlier management, (f) use of corrections for statistical and methodological artifacts, and (g) data transformations. Our recommendations address best practices as well as transparency issues. The formal implementation of our recommendations in the manuscript review process will likely motivate authors to increase transparency because failure to disclose necessary information may lead to a manuscript rejection decision. Also, reviewers can use our recommendations for developmental purposes to highlight which particular issues should be improved in a revised version of a manuscript and in future research. Taken together, the implementation of our recommendations in the form of checklists can help address current challenges regarding results and inferential reproducibility as well as enhance the credibility, trustworthiness, and usefulness of the scholarly knowledge that is produced.

Editorial Management of Ingeniería e Investigación Journal

This editorial note presents a review of the publication times and the reasons for the rejection of manuscripts submitted for evaluation to Ingeniería e investigación Journal. Some adjustments have been made recently to the editorial policy of the journal that we consider important to share with authors and readers.

Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache.

To identify and characterize the reasons manuscripts are rejected after peer review from the journal Headache. Numerous editorials, reviews, and research manuscripts have been published on the topic of manuscript rejection. However, few of these papers evaluate the reasons for rejection after peer review systematically. None are specific to the field of neurology or headache medicine. A retrospective analysis of all submissions to Headache from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 was performed. Peer reviewer and editor comments for each manuscript were reviewed, and unlimited reasons for rejection were coded for each manuscript. Detailed reasons for rejection were then grouped into 9 broader categories. A total of 784 submissions were received from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. Of those, 336 were immediately rejected and 434 went on to peer review. During this period, the overall rejection rate was 62.6% and the rejection rate after peer review was 35.7%. The 6 most common reasons for rejection after peer review were: flaws in methodology and study design, poor reporting of methodology, poor statistical analysis, overstatement of conclusions, problems with covariates or outcomes, and problems with the control or case group. Flaws in methodology and study design were the most common reasons for rejection after peer review from Headache between 2014-2016.

Peer reviews: the dreaded rejection

This commentary considers the reasons for rejection of manuscripts during the peer-review process. Poor methodology, inappropriate statistical analysis, irrelevance, and technical errors are cited frequently as motives for manuscript rejection. Guidance, such as selecting an applicable journal, conducting a rigorous study, and writing efficiently, is provided for authors to prevent initial rejection. Researchers are reassured that rejection is a common consequence of peer-review and subsequent submissions to other journals are often successful publications.

Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

Requirements of health policy and services journals for authors to disclose financial and non-financial conflicts of interest: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundThe requirements of the health policy and services journals for authors to report their financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (COI) are unclear. The present article aims to assess the requirements of health policy and services journals for authors to disclose their financial and non-financial COIs.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study of journals listed by the Web of Science under the category of ‘Health Policy and Services’. We reviewed the ‘Instructions for Authors’ on the journals’ websites and then simulated the submission of a manuscript to obtain any additional relevant information made available during that step. We abstracted data in duplicate and independently using a standardised form.ResultsOut of 72 eligible journals, 67 (93%) had a COI policy. A minority of policies described how the disclosed COIs of authors would impact the editorial process (34%). None of the policies had clear-cut criteria for rejection based on the content of the disclosure. Approximately a fifth of policies (21%) explicitly stated that inaccurate or incomplete disclosures might lead to manuscript rejection or retraction. No policy described whether the journal would verify the accuracy or completeness of authors’ disclosed COIs. Most journals’ policies (93%) required the disclosure of at least one form of financial COI. While the majority asked for specification of source of payment (71%), a minority asked for the amount (18%). Overall, 81% of policies explicitly required disclosure of non-financial COIs.ConclusionA majority of health policy and services journal policies required the disclosure of authors’ financial and non-financial COIs, but few required details on disclosed COIs. Health policy journals should provide specific definitions and instructions for disclosing non-financial COIs. A framework providing clear typology and operational definitions of the different types of COIs will facilitate both their disclosure by authors and reviewers and their assessment and management by the editorial team and the readers.

Ready! Aim! Fire! targeting the right medical science journal.

ObjectiveInadvertently 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionOur 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.

Developing and Sustaining a Research Agenda in Special Education Teacher Education

This article was developed from an earlier invitation to discuss what it was like to teach at a comprehensive arts and science college with a large teacher education program while also trying to conduct and publish applied research. Were there any particular tricks to getting things done that could be handed down to younger professionals working in similar circumstances? Any words of wisdom to pass along that might mitigate the challenges of not having enough time or at least make professional writing and manuscript rejection easier? Perhaps, but that would require someone of greater intellect and stature than the authors have. What the authors can share, however, are some important lessons they have learned while developing an applied research agenda in special education teacher education. The lessons reflect experiences the authors found helpful in navigating the higher education waters for the past three plus decades.

Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor

To evaluate whether quality of peer review and reviewer recommendation differ based on reviewer subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology and to determine the role of experience on reviewer recommendation. We performed a retrospective cohort study of reviews submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology between January 2010 and December 2014. Subspecialties were determined based on classification terms selected by each reviewer and included all major obstetrics and gynecology subspecialties, general obstetrics and gynecology, and nonobstetrics and gynecology categories. Review quality (graded on a 5-point Likert scale by the journal's editors) and reviewer recommendation of "reject" were compared across subspecialties using χ, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression. There were 20,027 reviews from 1,889 individual reviewers. Reviewers with family planning subspecialty provided higher-quality peer reviews compared with reviewers with gynecology only, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, gynecologic oncology, and general obstetrics and gynecology specialties (3.61±0.75 compared with 3.44±0.78, 3.42±0.72, 3.35±0.75, and 3.32±0.81, respectively, P<.05). Reviewers with gynecology-only subspecialty recommended rejection more often compared with reviewers with a nonobstetrics and gynecology subspecialty (57.7% compared with 38.7%, P<.05). Editorial Board members recommended rejection more often than new reviewers (68.0% compared with 41.5%, P<.05). Increased adjusted odds of manuscript rejection recommendation were associated with reproductive endocrinology, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and gynecology-only reviewer subspecialty (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.07-1.41], 1.21 [1.05-1.39], and 1.11 [1.02-1.20]). Manuscript rejection recommendation rate was also increased for reviewers who had completed the highest quintile of peer reviews (greater than 195) compared with the lowest quintile (one to seven) (adjusted OR 2.85 [2.60-3.12]). Peer review quality differs based on obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty. Obstetrics and gynecology subspecialty and reviewer experience have implications for manuscript rejection recommendation. Reviewer assignment is pivotal to maintaining a rigorous manuscript selection process.

English

This paper discusses reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication in Ethiopian Journal of Education (EJE). It intends to promote publication by domestic and/or international authors in EJE by analyzing the reasons for rejection of manuscripts. To gather the relevant data, a total of 101 rejected manuscripts submitted for publication EJE in the years 2008 to 2013 was collected and assessed. Moreover, contents of rejection letters were looked into. In doing so, the institutional affiliation of authors of the rejected manuscripts, editorial processes in which manuscripts were rejected mostly, the principal reasons for rejecting manuscripts of EJE, types of manuscripts which were more often exposed to rejection, and the nature of comments recommending rejection were analyzed. The results reveal that most of rejected manuscripts of EJE were affiliated from Addis Ababa University and Bahir Dar University, and the manuscripts were rejected mostly during the preliminary assessment, initial reviewing phase. Furthermore, using inappropriate research methods, poor data analysis and presentation, inadequacy of data to justify the conclusions, failure to follow the Journal’s styles and formats (guidelines) and failure or unwilling to revise manuscripts as per reviewers’ suggestions were principal reasons for rejecting manuscripts of EJE. The highest numbers of rejected manuscripts of EJE were also empirical studies which EJE accepts for publication consistently, and reviewers rejected those manuscripts after indicating their weaknesses and remarking further organization for resubmission. Finally, based on the results, the paper outlined recommendations for minimizing rejected manuscripts of EJE, and further studies were suggested. Key words: Manuscripts, publications, peer-review, rejection.

Authors and reviewers who suffer from confirmatory bias

Confirmatory bias induces overconfidence in the sense that people believe more strongly than they should in their preferred hypotheses. This work describes a Bayesian-based formal model to study the effect of overconfidence about the causes of manuscript rejection due to confirmatory bias in peer review. In addition, we also present an online tool that helps authors to study their beliefs about the causes of rejection. This tool takes the authors' self-evaluated probability of misinterpretation (i.e. confirmatory bias) and self-evaluated probability of perceiving a review signal correlated with the true cause of rejection and a sequence of review signals perceived as input, and gives a prediction of whether there is overconfidence and wrongness in the author's belief that bias in peer review caused rejection. We continue to discuss the effect of confirmatory bias in the editor-reviewer relationship in peer review process and show that when the strength of informative signals about the manuscript quality is sufficiently weak and reviewer's confirmatory bias is sufficiently severe, there is a strong probability that the reviewer would erroneously identify the manuscript quality, making the editor less inclined to offer the potential reviewer any incentive to accept the invitation to review the manuscript. Based on these, we offer a theoretical explanation of current practices adopted to improve the review performance (e.g., desk rejection).

Rejection of manuscripts and possible reasons

Rejection of manuscripts and possible reasons