How do you feel if your paper is rejected?

[arroy_0205]

Recently one of my papers was rejected from a journal. I expected the referee would ask for some changes and additions, but instead it was rejected. I doubt if the referee really understood the main aim of my paper. Also the report surprisingly does not give details of the objections the referee had. This was my first single-author paper. I am not feeling angry about it but also not feeling great! Just would like to know how others feel in case of rejection of papers.

Do you know of good websites where advises about writing papers and dealing with review process is given?

 

[Andy Resnick]

I get papers rejected all the time. One comment I recently got was "This paper would have been great if it was written in the 50's." Don't blame the referee- most likely you did not clearly explain yourself. Each Journal has a particular focus; perhaps your aim was not in line with what the Journal usually publishes.

It helps to show your paper to others prior to submission.

 

[Choppy]

Oddly, I was just at a seminar last night that dealt with publishing. In the particular journal the chair of the session was from, it turned out the acceptance rate was ~ 50%, which really shocked me. I would have thought it to be much higher.

One of the editors talked about the specific situations you bring up - namely (a) when the referees have appeared to miss the purpose of the paper, and (b) when the details of the objections are not given.

Here are some thoughts based on the suggestions he had.
(a) This could be the result of unclear writing. Perhaps the statement of purpose was not clear, or it was buried amidst an introductory overview. Or, the referee simply did not read closely enough.

(b) This is an issue with many referees. While the journals often expect a particular format of report, they don't always get it. The associate editor makes a call based on what he gets back.

In both cases, you are permitted to contact the journal's editor and plead your case - even if all you want is to politely request additional feedback or clarification from the referee reports.

Since you're a single author, you may want to find a colleague who's willing to read the manuscript and give you feedback as well. (Just because he or she reads it does not mean that he or she gets to become a co-author). Sometimes, it's difficult to assess your own writing, because you already know what the message is you're trying to convey.

 

[vanesch]

I regularly get papers rejected. I must be in the average: 50% or so. Sometimes, I agree with the referee ; most of the time, I think he missed the issue entirely. Usually, I resubmit once more, to another journal. If it gets rejected twice, I give up on it. The funny thing is that most of the time, the second submission is OK ! It's not a matter of "prestigious" or "less prestigious" journal, because paper A gets rejected by journal X and gets accepted by Y, and paper B gets rejected by Y and accepted by X.

The other funny thing is that the more I find my own paper good, the higher the probability that it gets rejected at least once !

The funniest comment I once got was: "too pedagogical". I explained too well what I wanted to say :-)

I have had a few referee comments which were right on: they pointed out a previous publication I wasn't aware of which said essentially the same thing, or pointed out a fundamental difficulty I had overlooked.
But by far most refusals were rather about the judgment whether the public of said journal would find the result interesting or not.

 

[Asphodel]

I had a professor recently that wrote a solicited paper...which was rejected.

It happens to everyone. It bums everyone out. The only thing to do is recognize that rejection is part of the process, do what you can to improve your attempts, and keep trying (with obvious parallels to career and love ).

 

[f95toli]

It might be worth to remember that referees CAN be wrong or simply dishonest which is why you can usually ask the editor to send the paper to another referee (the referee should at least give a good reason for why the paper was rejected).
There are -unfortunately- referees that reject papers simply because they don't like the competition, do not want to accept that they don't understant the theory or simply favour another interpretation when there are more than one way to interpret experimental data.

This is of course NOT how it is suppose to work, but it does happen.

 

[Monique]

I see that there is some experience with rejected manuscripts here, were these rejected upon the initial submission or actually after revision/resubmittion on request of the journal?

 

[turbo]

The paper that I co-authored with 2 other researchers recently was reviewed by two referees, one of whom took the time to make some detailed suggestions that greatly improved the quality of the finished paper. It took us a lot of extra work to make those revisions, but it was worth the effort, and Astrophysics and Space Sciences accepted the revised paper as-is when we re-submitted. It was an interesting exercise - the data tables were much too large to be published in print, so we put them on our web-site so they are available for public review.

The referee that made the helpful suggestions for improving the project did us a great service. If he/she had rejected the paper without giving reasons or by citing deficiencies with no suggestions for improvement, it would have been disheartening.

 

[evagelos]

Well, i can say the referees most of the time do not know in depth the subject of the paper, and if they do not see a glamourus name, they reject it. This is unfair in a fair science.

 

[turbo]

Well, i can say the referees most of the time do not know in depth the subject of the paper, and if they do not see a glamourus name, they reject it. This is unfair in a fair science.

The referee(s) who reviewed our paper were knowledgeable and well-acquainted with relevant publications. One of my collaborators has published a number of papers, primarily on galactic distance calibrators, but his is not a "marquee name" in astrophysics or cosmology, and my other collaborator and I have never published in this field before. We were treated quite fairly, with no hint of prejudice.

 

[evagelos]

were knowledgeable? does not mean anything. once i attached a paper investigating optical communications, and the referees rejected it telling, why you are dealing with this subject and not with radiowaves. What can i say? just laugh.

 

[turbo]

were knowledgeable? does not mean anything. once i attached a paper investigating optical communications, and the referees rejected it telling, why you are dealing with this subject and not with radiowaves. What can i say? just laugh.

Such a serious disconnect suggests that the journal was not appropriate for the subject-matter of your submission. Did you submit to another journal?

 

[evagelos]

well the journal was apropriate was about network comminications wireless communications. There were also published papers for optical communications, not only for radio communications.The problem is the referees. believe me. This kind of unfair treatimg is also in IEEE journals that not all of them follow the blinding proces...

 

[peos69]

The big question is in these cases who is going to check the " knowledgeable" referee
I have come across professors with no Doctor ship,Doctors with no Bsc and referees totally and utterly stupid . The situation is chaotic and a good implication of that is that the planet is doomed to dye. To that excellent situation we may add " the money governing power"

 

[Choppy]

I'd like to add in some clarification, if I may.

"Blind" review process generally refers to the fact that the authors will not know the reviewers.

"Double blind" generally means that the reviewers will also not know the authors.

Most journals have at least a blind process - for self-evident reasons. But not all of them have a double-blind process.

While many journals are not double blind, I don't think you gain anything by subscribing to the idea that reviewers are severely biassed by names (otherwise how would big names get big in the first place?). Reviewers are selected by associate editors who are then responsible to assess the reviews. If the review does not hold scientific merrit, the associate editor must either request the reviewer to re-review the work, or find another reviewer.

If you feel your work has not been accurately assessed, most journals have an appeal process (such as contacting the editor), and you do have the right to politely argue your objections to the associate editor and ultimately, the journal's editor.

 

[mathwonk]

kind of like getting shot down by a girl you hoped would go out with you. solution? same: i.e. ask another one.

 

[Fearless]

It might be worth to remember that referees CAN be wrong or simply dishonest which is why you can usually ask the editor to send the paper to another referee (the referee should at least give a good reason for why the paper was rejected).
There are -unfortunately- referees that reject papers simply because they don't like the competition, do not want to accept that they don't understant the theory or simply favour another interpretation when there are more than one way to interpret experimental data.

This is of course NOT how it is suppose to work, but it does happen.

Of course researchers are like anyone else, but is this really common?

 

[mathwonk]

my papers have been rejected for one of two reasons; either the referee thought the work contained errors, (they were always wrong about this) or they thought it had already been published ( they were always wrong about this as well) or thye just thoiught the quality waS NOT UP TO THE STANDARDS OF THE JOURNAL SUBMITTED TO (HOW COULD I ARGUE WITH THAT?)

i always responded by sending it to another journal. that did not always work since sometimes the journal sent it to the same referee who still thought it was wrong, not having understood it the first time.

but if the matter was that it was not up to the standards of the journal, then even the same referee feels differently about the different journal.

it iks hard to persuade an anonymoius rferee that he is wrong, so it is best just to send it to another journal.

in one case my paper also was solicited and then rejected by a referee who mistaKENLY THOUGHT IT WAS already published, so i fought hard and insisted that a prior reference be given, since the one suggested was incorrect, eventually the journal used a second referee and the paper was accepted after i rewrote it so that the referee could understand it.

this was a good outcome. now even i can understand the paper years after writing it.

 

[Defennder]

I didn't know journals made use of the same referees to review submission. I thought each journal had their own referee.

 

[ks_physicist]

The funniest comment I once got was: "too pedagogical". I explained too well what I wanted to say :-)

Well, we wouldn't want undergrads or out-of-field types to have a chance at understanding it. I suppose it is best if the paper is comprehensible to: the author, the referee, a group of 4 to 40 specialists in the world: pick two of the three.

If it CAN be explained that well, I don't see the function of rejecting it because it IS explained that well.

 

[f95toli]

Of course researchers are like anyone else, but is this really common?

It happens.
Example: A friend of mine used to work in a field where "everyone" tried to publish their important results in a particular journal. The problem was that the field was fairly small (a particular application of a particular type of material) and the journal only used a few referees and they were all working in the field in question.
The problem was that one referees used was also the leader of a group that kept getting results that were different from what everyone else was getting (which later turned out to be because of the way they were growing their films). Unfortunately he was also convinced that his group was right.
So, on a couple of occasions my friend was unlucky and ended up with this guy as the referee. In both cases the papers were rejected because the referee claimed the results where not "consistent with known results" (i.e. his own) saying there must be something wrong with how the samples had been prepared etc.
It was very to easy to identify the referee because he would also refer to several of his own papers in the report.

Anyway, on both occasions my friend (or rather his supervisor, this was when my friend was a PhD student) wrote a letter to the editor and asked for a new referee. The papers where then accepted and published.

This is an extreme case, but I can think of a couple of other examples as well.
So yes, it does happen. Hence, my point is that if you are convinced that the paper was rejected for some "unfair" reason you should definitely ask the editor for a new referee.

 

[Defennder]

Well, we wouldn't want undergrads or out-of-field types to have a chance at understanding it. I suppose it is best if the paper is comprehensible to: the author, the referee, a group of 4 to 40 specialists in the world: pick two of the three.

If it CAN be explained that well, I don't see the function of rejecting it because it IS explained that well.

I don't know if you were joking or not, but what's wrong with undergrads being able to understand it? Unless of course, the reviewer were subtly hinting that the submitted paper is too trivial to be published.

 

[arroy_0205]

Thanks for your responses. Personally I would not mind if my paper gets rejected for valid reason(s). But in my case I do not see any exactly valid objection(s) of the referee. The referee disliked my approach and suggested another one but those who are familiar with the problem know very well that the method referee suggested fails and new methods and ideas are needed. My first reaction to the referee report was, the referee must be an immature person in this field! This makes me upset. However as you are saying may be I will have to accept this as part of the research and publication process. Not everything is fair in life.

 

[Monique]

The referee disliked my approach and suggested another one but those who are familiar with the problem know very well that the method referee suggested fails and new methods and ideas are needed. My first reaction to the referee report was, the referee must be an immature person in this field! This makes me upset. However as you are saying may be I will have to accept this as part of the research and publication process. Not everything is fair in life.

No, you should build a case why the reviewer's suggestion is not valid (only if you REALLY are sure of your case). It is for these cases that you can appeal the decision of an editor.

The following text applies to the Nature journals, look up the policy for the journal you have submitted your work to.

Hence, Nature prefers to stick with the original referees of a particular paper rather than to call in new referees to arbitrate, unless there is some specific way in which the referee can be shown to be technically lacking or biased in judgement.

http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/index.html#a8

 

[Andy Resnick]

I see that there is some experience with rejected manuscripts here, were these rejected upon the initial submission or actually after revision/resubmittion on request of the journal?

For me, both.

 

[Andy Resnick]

It might be worth to remember that referees CAN be wrong or simply dishonest which is why you can usually ask the editor to send the paper to another referee (the referee should at least give a good reason for why the paper was rejected).
There are -unfortunately- referees that reject papers simply because they don't like the competition, do not want to accept that they don't understant the theory or simply favour another interpretation when there are more than one way to interpret experimental data.

This is of course NOT how it is suppose to work, but it does happen.

I would caution you about this attitude- ultimately, it's nonproductive.

Try to see the process from the point of view of the referee and editor:

Editors get hundreds of papers every week to assign to referees. Every week- and editors are usually faculty members somewhere, so they have actual jobs to do. Referees are also faculty folks with jobs, and reviewing papers takes valuable time away from (for example) writing their own papers.

Also, the editors know the referees- not socially, but professionally. The referees are chosen because the editor thinks they are best qualified to comment on the usefulness of the paper. Arguing with the editor over referee comments simply makes you, the unknown random, look like a nuisance.

It's really easy to make a legitimate question appear to be baseless whining. If you believe your paper was rejected unfairly, then ask your own colleagues to read your paper and read the comments. Then listen to what they have to say.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Well, i can say the referees most of the time do not know in depth the subject of the paper, and if they do not see a glamourus name, they reject it. This is unfair in a fair science.

That's not true. If the referee does not understand what you wrote, the burden is on you to better explain yourself. If the referee, a person knowledgeable about your work, is unable to figure out your paper, what makes you think anyone else in the world will be able to? Or want to make the effort?

 

[Andy Resnick]

I didn't know journals made use of the same referees to review submission. I thought each journal had their own referee.

Journals have *hundreds* of referees. Of course, the number of referees that Editors prefer to use is less than the total number of referees available: some referees review better than others.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, i can say the referees most of the time do not know in depth the subject of the paper, and if they do not see a glamourus name, they reject it. This is unfair in a fair science.

How do you know this? Did you hack into a journal's database and collected all the referees' academic credentials and comments?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

It might be worth to remember that referees CAN be wrong or simply dishonest which is why you can usually ask the editor to send the paper to another referee (the referee should at least give a good reason for why the paper was rejected).
There are -unfortunately- referees that reject papers simply because they don't like the competition, do not want to accept that they don't understant the theory or simply favour another interpretation when there are more than one way to interpret experimental data.

This is of course NOT how it is suppose to work, but it does happen.

But this is highly dependent on the journal itself. Prestigious journals would not let a referee do that, and since these journals tend to use more than just one referee per paper, there's an even lower probability of a referee's mistake or dishonesty harming a paper. Furthermore, and I hear this unofficially via various channels, many of the respected journals do keep a track record of their referees. In other words, they tend to have a clue if certain referees tend to be "dishonest". I think the Phys. Rev. certainly keeps tabs if a referee is consistently late in his/her review. Journals like this certainly would not let a referee reject or accept something without valid reasons, or at least a detailed explanation on the decision.

Furthermore, most of these journals have a mechanism for appeal, sometime even after an outright rejection. It doesn't mean you want to waste your time pursuing it, but they do allow for such a thing because of the human factor involved in all of this.

Zz.