Did you receive a standard reply from a journal which rejected your manuscript? Did it avoid giving any reasons apart from “not a good fit”? How can you turn this into a positive and move on?
For this advice I am grateful to Anna Clemens, of the Researchers’ Writing Academy.
So your article was rejected without peer review. What to do?
You have three choices
Try sending the unchanged manuscript to another journal.
Revise it first, then submit to a different journal.
Write a letter to the journal editor appealing against the rejection.
Anna Clemens has come up with five most common reasons for an article’s rejection without peer review.
- Your findings are not sufficiently significant or novel
- Your study is too narrow
- Your data is not well enough presented
- You used unsuitable (or outdated) methods
- Your article is not well expressed.
Let’s look at how we can deal with each of these possible reasons.
Are your findings new?
Either the editors consider many in the journal’s audience may not be interested in these findings or the results are not thought to be groundbreaking or novel enough.
Check your target journal’s stated aims, scope and readership. This information is usually available on the journal’s website under “Author Guidelines” or “About this Journal”. Compare your manuscript with recently published papers in the journal. Be confident but objective. If your results are sufficiently innovative, move on to considering the next possible reason.
Is your study’s scope wide enough?
High-impact journal editors prefer studies with substantial data sets to support their conclusions. Again, step back and try comparing your research with that published by the journal.
Did you examine an equivalent number of study parameters? Have you tried using other methods or looked into taking the next step, such as testing a proof of concept in actual conditions or scaling up a common response or reaction? If you have, then read on to the next possibility.
How well is your data presented?
Editors probably quickly scan your figures and tables to assess your research’s quality rather than reading through your entire results section.
Review your figures and captions critically or ask a colleague to summarise the main takeaway from each figure in a sentence. Are your graphics and tables clear enough? Do you need something more or something less? Can you combine and present data in a better way?
How effective are your methods?
Peer reviewers are usually responsible for analysing whether your findings are based on well conducted research, rather than journal editors. Even so, journal editors will have a good general understanding of your field. If they notice an outdated method or a poorly implemented technique, they will probably immediately reject your manuscript.
For advice on your methods, you could either ask a trusted colleague or upload a preprint (if the journal accepts manuscripts that have been preprinted) and invite discussion. If this is not the issue, one final potential cause for desk rejection remains.
How well is your article written?
Perhaps you did not clearly communicate the significance, strength and suitability of your findings for the journal. Your manuscript needs a coherent and compelling narrative, based on your results. Have you clearly communicated the importance of your research? Did you avoid generalised statements and popular jargon when explaining its significance? (Be particularly careful to avoid AI generated mush here.) Did you identify who would benefit or be interested in your findings? Did you cite newly published studies in your field from journals with a comparable impact factor?
If you can honestly answer that none of these reasons are relevant and you do not need to modify your manuscript, you could consider writing a letter to the editor appealing the rejection. In this letter, use the evidence gained from reviewing each of the five points for rejection explained above. Write confidently and support your opinions with facts.
Good luck!