I Dont Want to Be Denied Again

'Eight reasons I rejected your article'

A periodical editor reveals the top reasons so many manuscripts don't make it to the peer review process

By Peter Thrower, PhD     Posted on 12 September 2012

The Author

When a manuscript is submitted to a high-quality scholarly journal, it goes through intense scrutiny  — even before it's seen by the editor-in-chief and selected for peer review. At Elsevier, betwixt 30 per centum to 50 percent of articles don't even brand it to the peer review process.

Every bit Editor-in-Chief of Carbon , the international journal of the American Carbon Society, Dr. Peter Thrower experiences this situation first-hand. His advice to authors: "By avoiding these pitfalls, you lot will save reviewers, editors and staff time and frustration, and ensure that your work is judged by its scientific merit, not mistakes."

[divider]

one. It fails the technical screening

Before they even become to the editor-in-chief, articles are checked for technical elements. The main reasons they are rejected are:

Peter Thrower, PhD, is Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the international journal of the American Carbon Society, and Professor Emeritus of Material Sciences and Engineering at Penn State University.

• The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal. (Republishing articles or parts of manufactures, submitting to ane or more journals at the same fourth dimension or using text or images without permission is not allowed. Run into our ethical guidelines.)
• The manuscript is not consummate; information technology may be lacking cardinal elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references and all tables and figures).
• The English is not sufficient for the peer review process,
• The figures are not complete or are non clear enough to read.
• The commodity does not suit to the Guide for Authors for the periodical information technology is submitted to.
• References are incomplete or very old.

2.  It does not autumn inside the Aims and Telescopic

• For the journal Carbon, the material studied may incorporate carbon, but is not carbon.
• The study uses a carbon material only the focus is on something different.
• At that place is no new carbon science.

three.  Information technology's incomplete

• The article contains observations but is non a full report.
• It discusses findings in relation to some of the piece of work in the field simply ignores other important work.

4.  The procedures and/or analysis of the information is seen to exist defective

• The study lacked articulate control groups or other comparison metrics.
• The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that tin can exist repeated.
• The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.

5.  The conclusions cannot exist justified on the basis of the remainder of the paper

• The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid.
• The data does not support the conclusions.
• The conclusions ignore large portions of the literature.

6.  It'southward only a minor extension of a unlike paper, often from the same authors

• Findings are incremental and do not accelerate the field.
• The work is clearly role of a larger study, chopped upward to make equally many articles as possible.

7.  Information technology'southward incomprehensible

• The language, structure, or figures are so poor that the merit can't be assessed. Have a native English language speaker read the paper. Even if you lot ARE a native English language speaker. Need help? We offering language services.

8.  It's deadening

• Information technology is not archival, is incremental or of marginal interest to the field (see point six).
• The question behind the work is non of interest in the field.
• The work is not of involvement to the readers of the specific journals.

For more advice, check out the step-past-stride guide How to Publish in an Elsevier Journal or Publishing Campus.

Meridian ten stories of 2015

By | Posted on 04 Jan 2016

With tips for PhD students, tools for data sharing — and a patient'southward inspiring view on Parkinson's

What can you be with a PhD?

By | Posted on 02 Dec 2015

A publisher relates his transition from bookish enquiry to scientific publishing

5 secrets to surviving (and thriving in) a PhD program

By | Posted on 25 Jun 2015

A PhD candidate shares the lessons he'southward learned preparing his dissertation and publishing enquiry along the mode

'8 reasons I accepted your article'

By | Posted on fifteen January 2013

Journal editors reveal the top reasons a manuscript gets published

hallhattione.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article

Share this post