Paper Submission Rejection: A Silver Lining for My Complex Writing Style

  • Thread starter Thread starter elfboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paper
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the experience of a participant whose paper was rejected by a journal due to its complexity and perceived inaccessibility for the audience. The conversation explores the implications of this rejection, the quality of the work, and the challenges of writing in a specialized field.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses relief that the rejection indicates their work is not 'basic' and reflects on the complexity of their writing style.
  • Another participant questions whether the rejection is due to the writing style and asks how the original poster plans to address this issue.
  • Several participants note that rejection before peer review is generally not a positive sign, suggesting it may indicate a mismatch with the journal or fundamental issues with the paper.
  • One participant mentions that papers can still reach the review stage if they are not poorly formatted or obviously flawed, suggesting that the arcane nature of the subject might have influenced the initial review process.
  • A participant indicates they are seeking feedback from another mathematician to assess the quality of their work, acknowledging the specialized nature of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of views regarding the implications of the rejection, with some emphasizing the negative aspects while others suggest potential positive interpretations. There is no consensus on the reasons for the rejection or the quality of the work.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights uncertainties regarding the appropriateness of the chosen journal and the accessibility of the writing style, as well as the subjective nature of peer review processes.

Who May Find This Useful

Researchers and writers in academia, particularly those dealing with complex topics in mathematics or related fields, may find insights into the challenges of paper submissions and the peer review process relevant.

elfboy
Messages
92
Reaction score
1
I got good news..sorta...

My paper got rejected by the editors from a journal because it was 'too complex' 'too forbidding' for its audience.

That's good news because at least I know the caliber of my work isn't 'basic'. I was concerned that my works was based too much off calculus concepts wanst advanced enough. At least now I have a better perspective.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
well can't say much because I don't know what journal it is and I haven't read your preprint.
 
cool
 
Are you sure it is not the writing style? How are you going to solve this problem?
 
Getting a paper rejected by the editor, before it even made its way to the reviewers, is rarely a good thing
 
tmc said:
Getting a paper rejected by the editor, before it even made its way to the reviewers, is rarely a good thing

This is true. It either means that the journal you selected was not the right kind of journal or that there is something seriously and fundamentally wrong with your paper.
 
tmc said:
Getting a paper rejected by the editor, before it even made its way to the reviewers, is rarely a good thing


it made it to the referee process, which I presume follows an initial review

I emailed it to another mathematician who has strong experience in the same topic as my paper who is going to review it. I'm still confident the work is of decent quality, but acknowledge the topic matter is arcane and isn't readily accessible.
 
Papers make it to review as long as they aren't formatted horribly, blatantly stupid, or obviously fake.

The fact that it is an arcane subject means that it was probably more likely to make it through to review, even though it may have been crap, because the nobodies who do the initial read probably had no interest/idea what you were writing about.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
4K