Rejection is common in academic publishing: Can I avoid it?

Collectively, we have published about 300 papers, which means that we were rejected more than 600 times (assuming we get it published on the second attempt, which is highly unlikely)!  In addition, we both review for at least 30 peer-reviewed journals, so we have done out share of rejections. 

Rejection is common in academic publishing. Even researchers at the top of their field experience rejection. 

Based on our experiences and existing literature, here are some reasons why papers get rejected.

Things to consider before you start: Lack of originality, novelty, or significance

1. Results that are not generalizable
2.  Use of methods that have become obsolete because of new technologies or techniques
3. Secondary analyses that extend or replicate published findings without adding substantial knowledge and studies that report already known knowledge but positions the knowledge as novel by extending it to a new geography, population, or cultural setting (“me too” studies)
4. Results that are unoriginal, predictable, or trivial
5.  Results that have no clinical, theoretical, or practical implications

How to: Read, ask, consult….this is where collegial consultation, reading literature and reaching out to experts BEFORE you do your study is necessary.  Being at conferences helps to get a broad perspective of where the field is and if you are being novel, original and if your research will make a difference.  Most importantly,  did you ask enough the questions that start “WHY”? Why would your audience care?  Why do you expect to see what you see? Why is it important? Why wasn’t it done before?

Design, design, design: Flaws in study design

1. Poorly formulated research question
2. Poor conceptualization of the approach to answering the research question
3. Choice of a weak or unreliable method
4. Choice of an incorrect method or model that is not suitable for the problem to be studied
5. Inappropriate statistical analysis
6. Unreliable or incomplete data
7. Inappropriate or suboptimal instrumentation
8. Small or inappropriately chosen sample

How to: Points 1-8 are really due to a lack of a logic model applied before and during the writing.  Logic models allows one to connect the question, with hypothesis (of one can be stated), with the methods, outcomes, with the analyses and finally with the conclusions.  I always advise my trainees to write in point form and draw lines between these elements.  Lines cannot cross and everything is connected.  Unconnected elements need to be either removed, or other elements need to be added to connect them.  Elements whose lines cross need to be rearranged.  Only once this exercise is complete we can start populate this with information.

Note that logic model needs to be applied before and after the data is collected.  Before to make sure that you do not commit a fatal error that would deem your research un-publishable.  After, to make sure that the way you present it makes sense to the reader. 

Getting the writing done: Poor writing and organization

1.  Inadequate description of methods
2. Discussion that only repeats the results but does not interpret them
3. Insufficient explanation of the rationale for the study
4.  Insufficient literature review
5.  Conclusions that do not appear to be supported by the study data
6. Failure to place the study in a broad context
7. Introduction that does not establish the background of the problem studied

How to: It is very important for authors to present a persuasive and rational argument in their papers. You should be able to convince readers that your research is both sound and important through your writing. 

To consider once you are done: Mismatch with the journal

1. Findings that are of interest to a very narrow or specialized audience that the journal does not cater to specifically
2. Manuscripts that lie outside the stated aims and scope of the journal
3.  Topics that are not of interest to the journal’s readership
4.  Manuscripts that do not follow the format specified by the journal (e.g., case report submitted to a journal that explicitly states it doesn’t publish case reports)

How to:  Spend some time in choosing the accurate journals for submitting you paper. You can start by creating a list of journals and reviewing your options before deciding which journal to submit your manuscript to. 

  

Other: Inadequate preparation of the manuscript

1. Failure to follow the journal’s Instructions for Authors
2. Sentences that are not clear and concise
3. Title, abstract, and/or cover letter that are not persuasive
4. Wordiness and excessive use of jargon
5. Large number of careless errors like poor grammar or spelling mistakes
6. Poorly designed tables or figures

Relevant References

Bordage G (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manucripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9): 889-96.

Byrne DW (2000). Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at medical journals: A survey of editors and peer reviewers. Science Editor, 23(2): 39-44.

Coronel R (1999). The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making. Cardiovascular Research, 43(2): 261-264. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6363(99)00177-7.

McKercher B, Law R, Weber K, Song H, Hsu C (2007). Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(4): 455-470. doi: 10.1177/1096348007302355.

Pierson DJ (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory Care, 49(10): 1246-52.

Wyness T, McGhee CN, Patel DV (2009). Manuscript rejection in ophthalmology and visual science journals: Identifying and avoiding the common pitfalls. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, 37(9): 864-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02190.x.