Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1159/000347106
Title: How to handle a rejection:
Authors: Venketasubramanian, N. 
Hennerici, M.G.
Keywords: Acceptance
Publication
Rejection
Issue Date: Apr-2013
Citation: Venketasubramanian, N., Hennerici, M.G. (2013-04). How to handle a rejection:. Cerebrovascular Diseases 35 (3) : 209-212. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1159/000347106
Abstract: The rejection rate by scientific journals may be rather high, sometimes up to 70-90%. On receipt of notification of rejection, one may experience various stages of the Kübler-Ross grief cycle - denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, with an initial shock and an intermediate 'testing' stage. A paper may be rejected because of several reasons, such as the following: (1) it was submitted to an inappropriate journal, (2) journal format was not followed, (3) reading was not interesting or scientific/clinically sound, (4) topic was not current, (5) research was not novel, (6) low publication priority despite the absence of major flaws, (7) poor En-glish/writing style, (8) poor methods and statistics, (9) unbelievable results that were not properly discussed and (10) 'recycled' paper. Plagiarism is not tolerated. Simultaneous submission to 2 or more journals is not allowed. Outright rejection sometimes occurs in 70-80%; for 10-15%, the editor rejects without sending the paper to reviewers for obvious reasons as mentioned. For the majority, reviewers give feedback that leads to the editor rejecting the paper. On receiving notification of rejection, one should read the feedback and consider its contents prior to rewriting and submitting the paper to another journal (sometimes reviewers may see the same manuscript several times if asked by different editors). An invitation to resubmit 'de novo' occurs in only 1-5% of submissions; it requires substantial revision before resubmission. Being rejected but invited to resubmit a revised version occurs in 5-20% of submissions - it indicates a good chance of acceptance; one should carefully read the feedback and respond/comply with all suggestions. Papers rejected repeatedly may have 'fatal flaws' and are best abandoned. Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Source Title: Cerebrovascular Diseases
URI: http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/126817
ISSN: 10159770
DOI: 10.1159/000347106
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

5
checked on Sep 17, 2018

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

6
checked on Sep 5, 2018

Page view(s)

10
checked on Jul 19, 2018

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.