Facing rejection: 1 hack, 3 steps and 7 tips
All scientists face rejection from a journal at some point in their careers. It should be no surprise that the journal’s editor or any of several reviewers find at least a few issues in your 30 (or so) page submission. After all, it is their responsibility to the journal that your paper is scientifically sound, clearly written and original as well as factual.
You can get our detailed advice here on what you should do when your face rejection.
I remember my first submission to a learned journal. The comments from the editor stung deeply. How could the editor of the BMJ know more about the field of research than me (a young scientist still working on his PhD)? I felt that my 2 years of research and 5 months working on the data and the manuscript made me the best judge.
Go ahead, vent your frustration when you read the comments for the first time – then get over it – before you take any further action. Here is your key hack – put yourself in the right place before you start to address the feedback, irrespective of whether you are planning to submit your manuscript to another journal or attempt to rebut the comments of the editorial team. Responding to comments from the journal should be approached with a positive mindset following an iterative and organised process. Never do it while you are angry, irritated or generally put out.
Once you have decided on your course of action the steps you should follow are:
- Review the information provided by the editor and the referees separating out each comment and criticism individually by author (Editor; Referee 1; Referee 2, etc.).
- Address each comment and criticism carefully – we advise you provide your responses in an alternative colour or typeface to ensure that any changes you make to the text are not missed.
- Prepare a letter to the editor explaining your strategy. Take the opportunity to convince the Editor that you have dealt with all of the criticisms and why you feel so strongly that the journal should publish your work.
Here are a couple of tips that you might want to follow when preparing your responses:
- If returning your manuscript to the same journal do so as promptly as possible – it minimises the chance of your data becoming redundant.
- Minutely dissect the letter from the editor and the comments from the reviewers.
- Construct a logical and easily navigable response document. Restate the reviewers comment when responding to specific points.
- Chose carefully which battles to fight and provide clear reasoning when considering rebuttal.
- Avoid telling any of the reviewers directly that they are wrong and don't pit one reviewer against another.
- Be grateful and clearly express your gratitude – take every opportunity to thank the referees for their comments.
- Be prepared to cut your text – I have rarely met an editor that hasn’t wanted me to reduce the size of a manuscript.
And whatever you do, don’t submit the exact same version of your manuscript to another journal without making adjustments based on the comments you got from the first journal. You can get advice on how to select an alternative journal here.
Do you need further guidance, a helpful decision tree and a useful checklist on how best to respond to journal rejection? Simply download our free handy Insider’s Insight on handling rejection.
Dr Tim Hardman is Managing Director of Niche Science & Technology Ltd., a bespoke services CRO based in the UK. He is also Chairman of the Association of Human Pharmacology in the Pharmaceutical Industry and an occasional commentator on science, business and the process of drug development.