Turning rejection into a positive learning experience!

We have all had our manuscripts rejected. The question is, "What to do next?" This is one of the most common questions that I receive at the Nature Masterclasses that I conduct worldwide.

First, let me make one thing very clear. Everyone gets rejected. You are not alone. And it is not personal either. The editor is not telling you that you are a bad researcher or a bad person! No... They are simply saying that your manuscript is not appropriate for their journal right now. That's it. What is important is to take this as a learning experience so that you can improve your chances of acceptance the next time.

Understanding the cause of rejection

So, let's start at the beginning. You have received the decision letter from the editor telling you that your manuscript has been rejected. Did you read this decision letter carefully? Really? A common response when I ask researchers why they were rejected is, "I am not sure." That suggests to me that they did not carefully read the decision letter.

Journal editors often fall into one of two camps when writing rejection letters.

Thorough. One camp tries to provide thorough details as to why the paper was not suitable for publication (the nice way of saying 'rejection'). The idea behind this strategy is to give constructive advice to the researchers so that they can know what to avoid doing the next time. These decision letters take much more time to write for the editor as they need to frame their rationale clearly to avoid any misunderstandings.

Concise. The second camp prefers to write more concise decision letters without going into too much detail. Is it because they don't care? Of course not! The reasoning is usually that they do not want to give the authors false hope that there is a chance of overturning the rejection. These are the decision letters that can confuse authors, however, as to why they were rejected (in greater detail than the paper 'lacks sufficient novelty/impact' or is 'out of scope'). If you receive this type of decision letter, I strongly encourage you to contact the editor for more details.

After carefully reviewing the decision letter (and/or contacting the editor for more details), identify the key reason(s) for rejection. The most common reasons are:

• Not within the scope/editorial interests of the journal (please read the aims and scope carefully and look at what the journal is publishing now about your topic)
• Lack of novelty, originality, or impact compared with those that the journal normally publishes (editors want to avoid redundancy in their journals and will prioritize those studies that add greater value)
• Lack of interest or relevance for the field (editors are expected to publish articles that are currently relevant for the research community/society)
• Too preliminary and contains insufficient evidence to support the conclusions (and the editors feel it would require too much time to obtain that evidence)
• Inappropriate study design, techniques, controls, or conditions that raise concerns about the validity of the presented data
• Any ethical misconduct (plagiarism, data duplication, data fabrication, etc.)

So which of the above was the most likely cause(s) for the rejection of your paper? That is the first place to start...

Planning your next steps

Understanding why you were rejected can help guide you on what the next best steps would be.

Scope. If you were rejected for being out of scope, why was this? Was your study too specialized for a broad-focused journal? Did the editor feel the study was too regional to be of interest to an international audience? Was your study focused more on foundational/basic research while the journal is interested in translational research and applications?

I usually recommend looking at similar articles related to the author's study that was published in that journal. What was different about those studies? That can help guide you as to what led to the rejection of your paper. Sometimes the paper may be rejected because the authors did not frame their narrative in a clear way that emphasizes the broader or international interest of their work. This was the topic of my post 2 weeks ago that can give you more details on how to avoid that in the future.

Novelty/impact. If this was the cause of rejection, it is possible that you did clarify what was new or unique about your study compared with what has already been published (again, a problem of framing that I mentioned above). It is also possible that your study is more of an incremental step forward rather than a giant leap. And that's fine! Most research advances one small step at a time. But that means you need to choose a journal that publishes more incremental research for the next submission. Another option would be to consider mega-journals like Scientific Reports or PLoS ONE that is more concerned about the validity of the research rather than its novelty or perceived impact.

Relevance. This is a challenging cause of rejection that is hard to address. But this is why it is so important to carefully plan your study before you begin to ensure that the topic and research question is currently relevant for the field and/or society (this will be a topic of a future post, I promise!). Now, it could again be an issue of framing the narrative in your paper, but if not, again, you may want to consider a mega-journal as a more practical option for submission.

Too preliminary. This is one of the better (can I use that word in this context?) causes of rejection because once you obtain the additional evidence, you can once again re-submit to your target journal as a new submission (as long as the conclusion is still being sufficiently supported). This could take time or resources/expertise that you may not have. If this is the case, you may wish to collaborate with others to (1) speed up the time it takes to obtain the data, and (2) ensure that the evidence you obtain is valid and trustworthy. If you do not have the time to obtain all the required evidence, you may wish to choose a less selective journal with the data that you do have instead. If you do this, ensure that you reframe the conclusion to be appropriately supported by the evidence you do have and highlight in the discussion what future directions would be needed to go further (basically what the first journal told you needed to include).

Inappropriate study design. This is a difficult one. If the way you conducted your study is in fact inappropriate, that means that the data is not reliable, accurate, or reproducible. Try to identify what you did wrong and how to avoid those issues when designing your next study. You can talk to colleagues and look at published articles related to your topic to familiarize yourself with the techniques, models, conditions, etc. that are standardized in the field that can strengthen your study the next time. This time, however, it may not be publishable, so consider this a learning opportunity instead.

Sometimes, there could be disagreements in the field about what constitutes 'appropriate'. This is particularly true in social sciences where there can be different schools of thought. And if the editor chose reviewers that differ from your perspective, that could lead to claims of 'inappropriateness'. If you feel this is the case, and you feel confident that your study design in fine, you can try to explain this to the editor. If you decide to submit to another journal instead, you may want to emphasize this point in your cover letter and give recommendations for reviewers to more properly balance those perspectives when evaluating your study.

Ethical misconduct. I do understand the pressure that academics feel in publishing their work, as this may be required for graduation, your next position, a promotion, or continuing your funding opportunities. However, please be careful to plan, conduct, and publish your research as ethically as possible. There are many great resources online about research integrity, such as this free online course from Nature Masterclasses.

Taking the next steps

There are three likely avenues you can take after rejection: go back to the same journal as a new submission, go to another journal, or take advantage of journal transfers.

Going back to the same journal as a new submission. While not every journal will allow you to go back as a new submission after rejection, most will. This is likely the best option if you were rejected because the editor and/or reviewers found your study too preliminary. You may wish to ask the editor if you can address all the reviewers' major concerns, would they be willing to reconsider your paper as a new submission. If so, this could be a great option for two reasons.

1. You chose this journal for a reason. It is likely your #1 target journal that you feel is the best home for your study. So, maybe you should not give up so easily!
2. You know the editor is interested in your work...otherwise, they would not have sent it for external review. Can you guarantee that an editor at a different journal would do that? No, they could reject it without review. So, you may wish to stick with the editor that you feel is already positive about your study.

If you choose this route, make sure you address all the major concerns and obtain all the evidence they require first. Then, upon submission, make sure you tell the editor in the cover letter that you had originally submitted the study to their journal (and give them the original manuscript ID), why it was rejected, and what you have done since explaining why you feel it is now appropriate for re-evaluation.

Go to a different journal. This is probably the most common option, and would likely be more appropriate if you were rejected for being out of scope, novelty, or relevance. Sometimes, editors may give suggestions to other journals that they feel are more appropriate (e.g., a more specialized or regional journal). Discuss with your co-authors if you agree. Also, re-evaluate which type of journal is most appropriate for your study. I wrote a post about this a few months ago here.

Before submitting your paper to a new journal, try to revise as much as possible (based on the time and resources you have). Problems identified in the first journal could still be problems for the second journal. So, revising your manuscript can avoid another rejection. Furthermore, there is a chance that a reviewer who evaluated your study for the first journal could be selected to be a reviewer for the next one too! I know if I was a reviewer, I would like to know that the time and effort I gave to help that author was acknowledged and acted on when re-evaluating their submission at the new journal.

Journal transfers. Many publishers have a journal transfer process in place. It can either be a cascade like what is used at Nature Portfolio, or simply recommending another journal from the publisher. The latter is commonly done because those publishers may have thousands of journals that makes a cascade less appropriate. Keep in mind, if an editor is recommending transferring your manuscript to a journal, that means that they feel it is a good paper...otherwise,e they wouldn't recommend transferring it! So, please see journal transfers as a positive reflection on your study.

Journal transfers often make the publishing process simpler and faster for the author. So, as long as you feel the recommended journal is a good choice, it is usually in your favor to accept it. However, this is your work. So, if you have any concerns, you can always decline and choose the next journal on your own.

Good luck!

So, I hope this post can help guide those of you who have been (or will be) rejected when submitting your hard work to a journal. Remember, most importantly, think of it as a learning opportunity that will help make you a more successful published author in the future!