How do you feel if your paper is rejected?

[Dale]

I have request the appeal process for my manuscript to the editor in chief. Even now, after more than 2 months, he did not acknowledge the receipt of my mail!
That's how this procedure works!

Then fix the problems with your manuscript which caused it to be rejected in the first place, and submit it to another journal. If the review process for a given journal is unacceptably slow then go to one of their competitors.

 

[victorp]

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 becuase 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.

You are a good layer for those reviewers which make many mistakes BUT nobody can "punish" them. Is like saying:
"being professor, and having a lot of "work" to do (courses, writing papers, etc.) you are absolved of any bad review!"

 

[victorp]

I'm very upset due to the unpleasant story that happened to me. The time table of manuscript is given below:

Submitted to ... journal on February 11, 2010.
Editor-in-Chief R. R. assigned it to editor N.K. on February 20, 2010.
With editor N. K. from 21 Feb 2010 – 13 Aug 2010
Under review from 14 Aug 2010 – 19 Feb 2011
Author query 13 Dec 2010
"Dear Editor, could you please update me about the status of the article."

On behalf on of ... journal Mrs. T. B. responds to “Author query” 13 Dec 2010:
"Thanks for your email. This has been sent to be reviewed. Once we receive these you will receive an
email from the Editor In Chief. Reminders are sent on a regular basis."

The status of the manuscript was changed again to “Under review” 5 Jan 2011
Rejected 1 Feb 2011

Three reviewers have analyzed the submitted manuscript. Several comments lack motivation, are unclear, and contradictory (!). However, the most shocking statements made by all of them were:
1. "More recently results (2010-11) closely-related to the topic of this manuscript should be referred."
BUT THE MANUSCRIPT WAS SUBMITTED ON February 11, 2010! Moreover, If I could now the future ...

2. "The figures are placed at the end and without caption and figure number. It makes the life of referee difficult. Figures and tables must be inserted in the right place for review purpose."
The layout of the submitted manuscript was generated automatically by the journal's online system. Therefore I only comply with the requirements imposed by the ... journal.

I decided to appeal the decision given by the editor in chief R.R. to me manuscript. But, he still did not answer to me!

That's all!

Ciao,
V.

 

[ZapperZ]

Then I would agreed with DaleSpam. E-mail the editors telling them that the journal has not been responsive to your queries, and officially withdraw it, effectively removing your permission for the journal to further evaluate it. Then send it elsewhere.

Zz.

 

[Andy Resnick]

You are a good layer for those reviewers which make many mistakes BUT nobody can "punish" them.

I don't understand what you mean.

 

[turbo]

You are a good layer for those reviewers which make many mistakes BUT nobody can "punish" them. Is like saying:
"being professor, and having a lot of "work" to do (courses, writing papers, etc.) you are absolved of any bad review!"

Andy gave some good advice and some insight as to how the review process works. The editors and their reviewers are generally associated through their professions and the editors choose which reviewers should look at your submission based on his/her understanding of which reviewer(s) may be the best-qualified to assess the value of your paper. Anonymity is not there to protect the reviewer(s). It is there to protect the integrity of the peer-review process and the integrity of the journals.

 

[mathwonk]

rejection means it is time to submit elsewhere.

 

[Choppy]

I have request the appeal process for my manuscript to the editor in chief. Even now, after more than 2 months, he did not acknowledge the receipt of my mail!
That's how this procedure works!

But according to your later post you got a response on the day that you sent your query.

It's not uncommon for an initial submission to take six months or even a year to be published from the date of initial submission. That being said, waiting 10 months before submitting a query seems a little odd.

In the journals I work with reviewers have ~2 weeks to return a review. So if you figure a week for initial QA and an associate editor to be assigned, a couple weeks for the associate editor to locate reviewers, and add in a week or so for the reviewers to agree to do the review - and then two weeks + a week or two for extensions for them to actually perform the review, I think it's reasonable to expect a response within about two months from the date of initial submission. If you don't hear from the journal after a reasonable period, or if the submission does not seem to be progressing through the system - then you submit a query.

Lot's of things can go wrong. The sumbission may not be in the right format and get stuck in the queue electronically. The associate editor's mailbox could be full and the journal request could be skipped over. Not all referees are reliable. In my field most of them have demanding clinical schedules on top of teaching and their own research. Sometimes, if you don't hear from someone after a month, even though he agreed to do the review, you just give up and seek another reviewer. But you do have a means of politely "poking" the systems to make sure things are on track.

The way I try to deal with this is to have more than one project on the go. While you're waiting to hear back from one submission, you can be working on something else. (The down side to this is that when you finally hear back after a few months and need to make corrections, you have to dig up all your old files and try to remember where your stored everything while it was fresh in your head.)

 

[Agerhell]

I tried to get an article published for the first time in my life some three months ago. I had high expectations but after three weeks I got a rejection. They had not even bothered sending my paper to referees...(Instead of accepting it immediately and tipping of the Nobel committee If your paper does not reach the stage where it is sent to referees, does that necessary imply that it is really not good? I got a comment that said that I had not shown that there were any ongoing discussions on the particular subject i was pursuing in the physics community and that I could have shown that by including references to recent articles on the subject. That was a bit disheartening because I could not really find any other articles very similar to mine.

I have at tried to fix that and include recent references to articles on at least somewhat similar subjects and sent the paper to another journal. It was two and a half weeks ago since I sent my paper to the new journal. Does anyone know how long it should take for me to hear from the journal if this new journal also will not send the article to referees? Will I be able to see when I log into the journal that my paper have reached the stage of finding referees or waiting for referees to respond? The particular journal I am aiming for is Classical and Quantum Gravity by IOP Publishing... If I at least get my article sent out to referees this time, I will take it as a half victory...

 

[Choppy]

If your paper does not reach the stage where it is sent to referees, does that necessary imply that it is really not good?

It could mean any number of things. It sounds like you got some feedback from an associate editor. In general, for a journal to publish a paper, it must:
(1) Address an issue of interest to the scientific community in general.
(2) Address an issue of interest to the journal's readership.
(3) Contain novel information.
(4) Pass assessment by peer scientists as to its methodology and the conclusions drawn from the investigation.

A rejection will result from failing to meet anyone of these criteria.

I got a comment that said that I had not shown that there were any ongoing discussions on the particular subject i was pursuing in the physics community and that I could have shown that by including references to recent articles on the subject. That was a bit disheartening because I could not really find any other articles very similar to mine.

If there are no articles similar to yours, what did you say in your introduction to demonstrate your work satisfies the first two points above?

I have at tried to fix that and include recent references to articles on at least somewhat similar subjects and sent the paper to another journal. It was two and a half weeks ago since I sent my paper to the new journal. Does anyone know how long it should take for me to hear from the journal if this new journal also will not send the article to referees?

Read my previous post. I'm sure timelines vary from journal to journal, but that should give you an idea of what's reasonable to expect.

You should also discuss this kind of thing with your supervisor as he or she should have a much better idea of what to expect from the particular journal you've submitted to.

Will I be able to see when I log into the journal that my paper have reached the stage of finding referees or waiting for referees to respond? The particular journal I am aiming for is Classical and Quantum Gravity by IOP Publishing... If I at least get my article sent out to referees this time, I will take it as a half victory...

I have no experience with this particular journal. Most journals that I submit to these days have an online submission tracking system though. This is another thing to ask your supervisor about.

 

[Agerhell]

It could mean any number of things. It sounds like you got some feedback from an associate editor. In general, for a journal to publish a paper, it must:
(1) Address an issue of interest to the scientific community in general.
(2) Address an issue of interest to the journal's readership.
(3) Contain novel information.
(4) Pass assessment by peer scientists as to its methodology and the conclusions drawn from the investigation.

A rejection will result from failing to meet anyone of these criteria.


If there are no articles similar to yours, what did you say in your introduction to demonstrate your work satisfies the first two points above?

What I do in my paper is that I make two assumptions. From those assumptions I am able to derive an equation. I compare how well this new equation works compared to the standard equation in the field that is some 35 yars old. I think my equation has some benefits. This was what I described in my introduction. My fear is that I am, de facto, questioning an equation that nobody really seems to be questioning... So I am a bit worried that journals will be reluctant to publish my paper, not because it does not contain novel information or is considered out of scope for the journal, but because it questions something well-established... So I think the editor board of the journal where my paper got rejected thought it was a bit to speculative and wanted me to provide evidence that others also had published similar ideas... In my new version I included ten new references to recent articles in the introduction section. I do not really see that those references are necessary for the material I am presenting, but I hope it will do the trick... The only individualised response i got from the editor at my last effort was:

"The author of this manuscript fails to make clear how his work relates to current discussions in *****. This is displayed by a lack of references to recent literature. Regrettably, this fact places the current submission outside the scope of ******."

I erased the name of the journal.

Read my previous post. I'm sure timelines vary from journal to journal, but that should give you an idea of what's reasonable to expect.

You should also discuss this kind of thing with your supervisor as he or she should have a much better idea of what to expect from the particular journal you've submitted to.


I have no experience with this particular journal. Most journals that I submit to these days have an online submission tracking system though. This is another thing to ask your supervisor about.

I am just being eager... This particular journal says that the median time for referee reports is 50 days and that the median time from that time a paper is sent in until the time it is published is 123 days. I do not want to contact the journal and ask how long it will take, on average, if they decide not to send the paper to referees... I do not have a supervisor per se but i have gotten some great help from a native speaker of english who has gotten several papers published on similar issues in similar papers, and I have read a lot of articles in the article I am aiming for and I think it should meet the formal requirements for what is asked from an article published in the journal in question.