For a lot of younger scientists, publishing a analysis paper marks step one exterior the partitions of upper schooling and into the realm {of professional}, scientific discourse. Months and even years of experimentation, evaluation, and writing culminate in a paper—an embodiment of insights and perseverance—poised to advance the sector. But, the journey forward may be fraught. On the highway to publication, you could encounter rejection, a typical although unwelcome impediment.
Understanding tips on how to navigate this case is a crucial ability for early-career researchers. This text explores the several types of rejections you may obtain, when you need to take into account interesting, and explains why, when, and tips on how to method the rebuttal course of. It additionally shares first-hand insights from CST Growth Scientist Homa Rahnamoun, PhD on how she has efficiently appealed a journal rejection.
The Distinction Between Desk and Reviewer Rejections
Manuscript rejections fall into two predominant classes—editor rejections (additionally known as desk rejections) and rejections after peer evaluation. The primary sort happens on the editorial stage by the journal’s editorial board and signifies that your manuscript was not despatched out for peer evaluation.1 Round 20 to 30% of papers are rejected with out peer evaluation.2
There are a large number of causes for a desk rejection, together with:
- Inadequate Conceptual Novelty: Insights from the manuscript don’t contribute meaningfully to the sector.
- Preliminary or Underdeveloped Content material: The information could not adequately assist the conclusion.
- Editorial Consistency: The journal could have lately rejected comparable manuscripts, although this data just isn’t sometimes disclosed to authors.
- Misalignment with Journal Aims and Focus: The content material of the manuscript could not match the scope, mission, or priorities of the journal.
Given the load of those causes, appeals to editors after a desk rejection are unusual and infrequently consequence within the reversal of their resolution.3 Nonetheless, strive to not be discouraged, as desk rejections can symbolize a blessing in disguise. When obtained earlier than coming into the prolonged reviewer course of, they’ll enable for efforts to be swiftly redirected towards a extra acceptable journal.
Rejections Following Manuscript Peer Evaluation
If a manuscript receives a inexperienced gentle from the editorial board, it is going to be handed on to reviewers. At this stage, unbiased consultants within the area will consider your paper and supply constructive suggestions and proposals to the editorial board.4
Weblog: The Peer Review Process: What Is It, and How to Suggest Reviewers
It’s estimated that round 40% of papers are rejected following peer evaluation for a wide range of causes, together with:2
- Methodological Flaws: Reviewers may establish flaws within the experimental design, information assortment, or statistical evaluation, which undermine the validity or reliability of the research’s findings.
- Reviewer Disagreement: In circumstances the place reviewers present conflicting assessments or suggestions, the editor could determine to reject the manuscript primarily based on the general analysis or lack of consensus.
- Presentation of Outcomes: If the presentation of outcomes is unclear, incomplete, or inadequately supported by proof, reviewers could query the validity or robustness of the findings.
Some of these rejections usually tend to warrant a rebuttal, as they’ll consequence from reviewers misunderstanding the information and conclusions or differing reviewer views.
“As a graduate scholar, I definitely skilled my share of rejections,” says Homa. “If the editor isn’t in your facet and the paper will get rejected by the desk, there’s usually not a lot you are able to do about it. Nonetheless, appeals after a reviewer rejection—particularly when the editor is happy in regards to the research—may end up in the eventual acceptance of the manuscript if approached in the fitting means.”
Why and When to Attraction a Manuscript Rejection?
Interesting a reviewer rejection generally is a daunting prospect, however the course of may be worthwhile. Not solely can it result in a second likelihood for publication, it could possibly additionally present invaluable insights about your manuscript. Whatever the final result, gathering extra details about reviewer considerations might help you strengthen your arguments, take into account exterior views in your analysis, and construct a relationship with the journal’s editors.
Nonetheless, earlier than interesting, take into account all of your choices. Typically, submitting a manuscript to a distinct journal generally is a extra environment friendly use of time and power. It’s value noting that appeals are normally thought-about to be low precedence by editors, and that is very true for journals with excessive submission volumes. The probabilities of a paper being accepted after an preliminary rejection are considerably decrease than at first submission. You’ll additionally wish to take into account your bandwidth, in addition to that of your co-authors. If the analysis was a collaborative effort, you’ll want to focus on the viability of pursuing a rebuttal with the complete workforce. You’ll wish to steadiness the feasibility of addressing reviewers’ considerations, and the potential affect revisions might have on total manuscript high quality towards the workforce’s bandwidth and supreme targets.
As you suppose by way of your subsequent steps, take just a few days to think about the choice fastidiously. Particularly, mirror on questions comparable to: Had been there any technical points within the authentic paper? In that case, can they be resolved utilizing present strategies inside an affordable timeframe? Might there have been a misunderstanding of the information or conclusions? Is the paper technically sound however falls brief in conceptual advance or novelty? Within the former eventualities, pursuing a rebuttal is perhaps extra prone to be accepted. Nonetheless, within the latter case, the place the difficulty is an absence of conceptual advance, a rebuttal is mostly much less prone to succeed.
“Total, I’d say that so long as you could have one favorable reviewer, reaching out to the editor to debate how considerations may be addressed is pretty normal,” provides Homa.
Weblog: Mastering the Many Forms of Scientific Writing in Academia
Writing an Efficient Rebuttal and Attraction Letter
For those who determine to maneuver ahead, an attraction sometimes takes the type of a rebuttal or attraction letter, which is a proper response written by the authors to deal with the considerations and criticisms raised by the editor and reviewers through the preliminary analysis course of. It serves as a possibility for you because the creator to defend the scientific validity, significance, and originality of your work, in addition to to suggest options or revisions to resolve any perceived shortcomings.3
Earlier than crafting your rebuttal letter, step one is usually to succeed in out to the editor to debate the potential for an attraction. “In my expertise, the principal investigator is nearly at all times the one to succeed in out to the editor to arrange a dialogue, both through e-mail or telephone, relying on the prevailing relationship,” says Homa. “This course of has the best likelihood of success if a minority of the reviewers had a unfavourable evaluation of the manuscript.”
As you’re employed together with your PI and different authors to plan for the assembly and craft your attraction letter, start by composing a complete point-by-point response and motion plan to deal with the suggestions supplied as you’ll usually throughout paper revision. Spotlight any new information or experiments you could have carried out because the preliminary publication that would strengthen the paper or handle the considerations. You’ll wish to present a concise overview of the important thing points and clarify why you imagine the rejection is unwarranted. A well-crafted rebuttal ought to persuade the editor to rethink their resolution by way of reasoned arguments offered with professionalism, readability, and rigor.
To offer the editor time to evaluation arguments and put together for a dialogue, it’s finest to share the point-by-point response both within the preliminary e-mail correspondence or not less than a number of days earlier than the scheduled dialogue.
Be aware that the tone of the rebuttal and the communication with the editor is extremely vital. It’s vital that everybody be open to suggestions, receptive to strategies for enchancment, and proactive in proposing options to deal with reviewers’ considerations.
“In a single expertise the place I’ve had a manuscript accepted after a rebuttal, two of the three reviewers had a optimistic evaluation of the research, and the editor was enthusiastic about it, which I feel is vital,” continues Homa. “My PI met with the editor to debate the third reviewer’s considerations and our plan for addressing them. The editor was very a lot on board, and we accomplished the revisions and resubmitted. The paper was despatched to the reviewers once more and really shortly after that, it was accepted!”
Partaking in a constructive dialogue with the editor can considerably affect the result of the attraction, and the editor generally is a invaluable useful resource. They will place the choice letter in context and assist prioritize your experiments and considering. Remember the fact that making an attempt to steer the editor with out presenting new information or an in depth experimental plan is seldom efficient. As a substitute, authors ought to collaborate to develop a logical and possible plan, specifying which experiments will likely be carried out, what perceived shortcomings they may handle, and the way the general manuscript will likely be strengthened.
Alternatively, the editor can also assist you to take into account and prioritize different journals that could be acceptable houses to your manuscript.
After the dialogue, the editor could seek the advice of with colleagues or reviewers for particular suggestions on the proposed experiments earlier than formally inviting a revision. Typically, predicting whether or not sure experiments will handle the reviewers’ considerations is difficult. If these considerations are central to the rejection, the editor could request to see the outcomes earlier than inviting a revision.
After finalizing the revision plan with the editor, it’s important to execute it successfully. Regardless of meticulous planning, surprising delays or adjustments can happen in scientific analysis. In such circumstances, authors ought to overtly focus on considerations about feasibility and potential outcomes with the editor, making certain transparency and life like expectations. Constructing contingencies into the motion plan and sustaining common communication with the editor might help handle timelines and hold the manuscript on monitor for resubmission.
Potential Outcomes of Rebuttals
The outcomes of an attraction are extremely depending on the circumstances and motive for the rejection. They will vary from reconsideration upon reviewing new information to offering a rationale for sustaining the rejection. In the end, the result is influenced by the hassle that you’ve got put in and the persuasiveness of your argument.
Total, keep optimistic and don’t let rejections get you down. They’re a part of the educational expertise, and the selections aren’t at all times ultimate. For those who go into the method with an open angle and a willingness to take heed to suggestions, the worst that may occur is that you simply’ll come out of it with some helpful insights—and in the event you’re profitable, you’ll hopefully get to see your title in print!
Whereas we’re retaining our fingers crossed that your manuscript will likely be accepted following evaluation, we hope this text serves as a supply of steerage and assist for these situations when acceptance will not be speedy.
References and Additional Studying
- Scholz, F. Writing and publishing a scientific paper. ChemTexts. 2022;8(8). doi:10.1007/s40828-022-00160-7
- Ali J. Manuscript rejection: causes and remedies. J Younger Pharm. 2010;2(1):3-6. doi:10.4103/0975-1483.62205
- Taylor & Francis. [Online] Peer review appeals and complaints from authors.
- Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli Okay. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC. 2014;25(3):227-243. Printed 2014 Oct 24.
- Lin, Y. “We agree completely with the reviewer, but…: Stance in author rebuttal letters for journal manuscript reviews. Engl Specif Purp. 2024;73:159-171. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2023.10.004
- Sullivan GM, Simpson D, Yarris LM, Artino AR Jr. Writing Author Response Letters That Get Editors to “Yes”. J Grad Med Educ. 2019;11(2):119-123. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-19-00161.1
- Tress, G., Tress, B. and Saunders, D. (2014). How to write a paper for successful publication in an international peer-reviewed journal. Pacific Conservation Biology, 20, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC140017
24-FLE-99100