11 Reasons Why Manuscripts are Rejected

11 Reasons Why Manuscripts are Rejected

San Francisco Edit

Manuscripts submitted for peer review publication may be rejected for a
number of different reasons, most of which are avoidable.

It should be noted that the reasons for accepting manuscripts are not the
mirror image of the reasons for rejecting manuscripts. The main reasons for
accepting manuscripts are: their contribution and relevance to the field,
excellence of writing, and quality of the study design.

Many journals expect reviewers to assess the scientific merits and validity
of research in submitted manuscripts; however, reviewers can become critical
of manuscripts containing numerous language errors, which are difficult to
eliminate without careful editing. Scientific writing demands both good
science and well written manuscripts.

Following are the principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected. They are
all equally important because reviewers tend to focus on different issues
depending on their individual concerns and the journal's requirements.

1. Poor experimental design and/or inadequate investigation. An inadequate
sample size, a biased sample, a non-unique concept, and scientific flaws in
the study are common faults.

2. Failure to conform to the targeted journal. This is a common mistake.
The focus of the manuscript is not within the scope of the journal and/or
the guidelines of the targeted journal are not followed. This can easily be
avoided by reading the targeted journal and reviewing the author guidelines.

3. Poor English grammar, style, and syntax. Though poor writing may not
result in outright rejection of a manuscript, it may well influence the
reviewer's and editor's overall impression of the manuscript. It has been
shown that a well written manuscript has a better chance of being accepted.

4. Insufficient problem statement. It is important to clearly define and
appropriately frame the study's question.

5. Methods not described in detail. Details are insufficient to repeat the
results. The study design, apparatus used, and procedures followed must be
made clear. In some cases it might be better to put too much information
into the methods section rather than to put too little; information deemed
unnecessary can always be removed prior to publication.

6. Overinterpretation of results. Some reviewers have indicated that a
clear and ''honest'' approach to the interpretation of the results is likely
to increase the chances of a manuscript being accepted. Identify possible
biases and confounding variables, both during the design phase of the study
and the interpretation of the results. Describe experimental results
concisely.

7. Inappropriate or incomplete statistics. Using inappropriate statistical
methods and overstating the implications of the results is a common error.
Use an appropriate test and do not make the statistics too complicated.
Quantify and present findings with appropriate indicators of measurement
error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals).

8. Unsatisfactory or confusing presentation of data in tables or figures.
The tables or figures do not conform in style and quantity to the journal's
guidelines and are cluttered with numbers. Make tables and graphs easy to
read. Some editors may start by looking quickly at the tables, graphs, and
figures to determine if the manuscript is worth considering.

9. Conclusions not supported by data. Make sure your conclusions are not
overstated, are supported, and answer the study's questions. Be sure to
provide alternative explanations, and do not simply restate the results.

10. Incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the literature. Be sure
to conduct a complete literature search and only list references relevant to
the study. The reviewers of your manuscript will be experts in the field
and will be aware of all the pertinent research conducted.

11. Author unwilling to revise the manuscript to address reviewer's
suggestions. This can easily be resolved. Taking the reviewers'
suggestions into account when revising your manuscript will nearly always
result in a better manuscript. If the editor indicates willingness to
evaluate a revision, it means the manuscript may be publishable if the
reviewers' concerns could be addressed satisfactorily.