In this blog series, our in-house and external editors share their top tips and advice on publishing research. You can expect to read real-life stories in guest posts from our associate editors and learn how manuscripts are assessed from an editor’s point of view. In part one, Professor Robert Baker talks about why manuscripts are sometimes rejected. Read on to discover Robert’s tips.
Why did the editor reject my manuscript?
Guest post by Professor Robert Baker, Trinity College Dublin. RSC Advances Associate Editor and Editorial Board member
Most of the readers of this blog post are driven by curiosity. The question “why?” is something we have at the forefront of our scientific endeavours. Why did this reaction give black insoluble gunk? Why is the reaction yield 5% (rounded up)? Some of the more interesting results have come from questioning the “why” of failed reactions – Vaska’s complex was discovered by accident, Kubas discovered the first dihydrogen complexes because of a poor yield, and there are many more examples from all branches of chemistry. Then we spend ages analysing the data: why did the NMR spectrum have too many peaks? After that, we put all the answers to our “why” on paper and send it to a journal for peer review. But how many times do we receive the following email from an editor rejecting our carefully crafted manuscript?
Thank you for your recent submission. All manuscripts are initially assessed by the editors to ensure they meet the criteria for publication in the journal. After careful evaluation of your manuscript, I regret to inform you that I do not find your manuscript suitable for publication because it does not meet the novelty and impact requirements of the journal. Therefore, your article has been rejected.
Yours sincerely
The editor”
So what went wrong?
From experience, some of the common problems revolve around cover letters, how the manuscript is presented and how to respond to referees’ comments. Why did they not get it? Why didn’t I think of that?
Let’s start with cover letters. As an associate editor in the areas of spectroscopy, homogenous catalysis and inorganic chemistry at RSC Advances, I come across several manuscripts with cover letters in the following format:
"Dear editor
Here we submit the paper entitled “XXXXX”. We would be grateful if the manuscript could be reviewed and considered for publication in RSC Advances. Thank you for your kind consideration.
Yours sincerely
The authors"
Such brief cover letters do not help the cause of the manuscript. At the very minimum, the cover letter should clearly state the advances made to the literature in a manner that helps editors and reviewers evaluate the manuscript.
Here are my most common reasons for rejecting a manuscript without review:
- Does the introduction set the scene – what is the problem the authors are looking at and why is it different to the literature? Context is key. In-depth introductions with specific references can go a long way.
- Remember to include results and a discussion section. Are your results good, bad or indifferent?
- Does the introduction and conclusion match the results? Surprisingly, many manuscripts offer an introduction to results from a previous paper.
Best piece of advice to a submitting author?
You are telling a story of why your results are important. Lead the reviewer and reader by the hand, explain everything that is important, but do it succinctly. The reader of your article wants to learn something new, so tell them what that is.
Having a manuscript rejected by an editor or by peer reviewers is sometimes tough to take, especially in the early stages of your career. It’s frustrating and annoying but it happens to everyone; the comments are on your work, not you as a person or scientist. The best (though not necessarily easiest) way to look at it is as a learning experience. For example, I submitted a manuscript early in my career with the elemental analysis mixed up between two compounds; a referee picked up on this and the whole report was:
The bulk purity of the compounds has not been proven, therefore none of the conclusions are remotely valid. Reject.
I have not made the same mistake again!
More resources to explore
Every 九州影院 journal has a team of passionate people and editors behind it. We will always be here to help you, no matter your query.