next »

[science_expat]

For one of my main journals, the never darken our day again email is along the lines of "the problems are fundamental, go to the very heart of the manuscript, and I do not feel that they can be corrected by a round of revision".

I'd say that's a pretty clear DON'T resubmit.

[testingthewaters]

"the problems are fundamental, go to the very heart of the manuscript, and I do not feel that they can be corrected by a round of revision".

Wow, that's pretty harsh.... I've had enough rejections but never anything like that. I've been lucky that all of the editors I've dealt with have been either impartial (boilerplate letter, usually meaning that manuscript findings were judged too weak for impact factor of journal) or very helpful, pointing out what they considered main problems with the manuscript raised by the reviewers. This last sort is the best, since that is actually extremely helpful revising to get the paper accepted elsewhere.

Despite the sometimes horrible nature of peer review, I do actually believe that it works. I've had more than a few manuscripts that I grudgingly revised based on reviewers comments, but had to admit in the end that they did actually improve.

[shamu]

2.  Do the quick fixes first and cross them off the list; these should be all of the picky things that the reviewers point out - "why did the writer use this word on page 18?", "There seems to be a word missing on page 23.", etc.

I disagree with this piece of advice (the rest seemed very helpful). If the paper is an R&R, and there will be major revisions, some of the trivial ones will become obsolete. You may end up re-writing sections that will be removed altogether.

I would also add that you need a killer cover letter. The editor and the reviewers want to know how you addressed their points, and they like to see a summary of that.

[science_expat]

"the problems are fundamental, go to the very heart of the manuscript, and I do not feel that they can be corrected by a round of revision".

Wow, that's pretty harsh.... I've had enough rejections but never anything like that. I've been lucky that all of the editors I've dealt with have been either impartial (boilerplate letter, usually meaning that manuscript findings were judged too weak for impact factor of journal) or very helpful, pointing out what they considered main problems with the manuscript raised by the reviewers.

That is the boilerplate...

We have accept as is, return for minor revision, return for major revision, reject and encourage resubmission, and reject. That's the statement that accompanies "reject".

BTW, the difference between major revision and reject and encourage resubmission is that in the latter case the manuscript is treated as a new one and hence must go to 2 reviewers. In the former case, the involvement of external reviewers is at the associate editor's discretion.

[shamu]

(The paper I was reviewing for the journal mentioned above was quite bad: it had no scholarly apparatus and referenced no other published work as well as tended to ramble without a point. I wrote in my report, "It is an interesting topic, but needs major revisions....")

As a reviewer, if you think the paper is that bad, you should recommend rejection rather than "major revision". Something like "The paper addresses an important issue in our field; however, it is my opinion that even after extensive revision it may not be suitable for pubilcation in JOURNAL NAME."

Nowadays, some journals I review for ask that the review sent to the author(s) not include recommendation for acceptance, revision or rejection. Instead, I write a separate, much shorter letter to the AE with my recommendation. The rest of the feedback (long version without publication recommendation) goes to the author(s).

[jerseyjay]

(The paper I was reviewing for the journal mentioned above was quite bad: it had no scholarly apparatus and referenced no other published work as well as tended to ramble without a point. I wrote in my report, "It is an interesting topic, but needs major revisions....")

As a reviewer, if you think the paper is that bad, you should recommend rejection rather than "major revision". Something like "The paper addresses an important issue in our field; however, it is my opinion that even after extensive revision it may not be suitable for pubilcation in JOURNAL NAME."

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but....

The thing is, I thought that it could be made acceptable, with major revisions, which I spelt out in (probably too much) detail in the report.

Without giving away too much, I thought that the paper had framed some interesting questions and had dealt with the primary sources in a decent way. What was missing was any attempt to frame this sources, put them in (historical or historiographical) context. It would have taken a lot of work, but it was not impossible. Hence, "major revisions." (Of course, even after these revisions, it "may not be suitable" for publication, but it also may be suitable. If I thought it was beyond redemption, I would have said so.)

Jersey

[stratagem_007]

Excellent points all around -- I'm grateful to everyone for the time you're taking in writing down your thoughts and experiences!

Having read what everyone here has written, it would seem that my manuscript falls into the "revise and resubmit" category. The editor wrote that upon receiving my substantially revised MS, she/he may, at his/her discretion, send it to the reviewers once again. The reviewers were gracious, with one of them saying that my MS could mark a major contribution to the field. I was blown away by this!

Interestingly, two of the three reviewers lauded my theoretical framework, but the third reviewer regarded my main analytical distinction between X and Y (which is integral to my theoretical framework) as unconvincing. What to do when one of the three reviewers thinks I'm a little out to lunch, while the others do not?

[kurejara]

Great wealth of information here.  I went through three harsh rejects, and then finally got an "conditionally accepted" even though I interpreted the letter as a standard R&R.  It is my only pub so far (still a grad student).  But the lesson learned was priceless: never give up.  Revise, send out; revise, send out; revise, send out; lather, rinse, repeat.

[trabb]

Great wealth of information here.  I went through three harsh rejects, and then finally got an "conditionally accepted" even though I interpreted the letter as a standard R&R.  It is my only pub so far (still a grad student).  But the lesson learned was priceless: never give up.  Revise, send out; revise, send out; revise, send out; lather, rinse, repeat.

Yep - here's what I learned after having many articles rejected, most of which ended up in print elsewhere.

Even after having lots of of articles rejected, the sting of getting rejections doesn't go away.  What does happen is that you start to realize that the reviewers aren't necessarily right.

[englitprof]

Interestingly, two of the three reviewers lauded my theoretical framework, but the third reviewer regarded my main analytical distinction between X and Y (which is integral to my theoretical framework) as unconvincing. What to do when one of the three reviewers thinks I'm a little out to lunch, while the others do not?

in this case, macchiavelli, I'd stick with your analytical distinction and explain why you're doing so in your cover letter, perhaps paraphrasing the other two reviewers.

[englitprof]

Even after having lots of of articles rejected, the sting of getting rejections doesn't go away.  What does happen is that you start to realize that the reviewers aren't necessarily right.

Ain't that the truth!  It does happen, on occasion, that a review has his/her head firmly up the nether region.  This is unbearably frustrating, but you have to simply suck it up and turn to the next journal on your list.

[mickeymantle]

I just want to add that while reading Joseph Blotner's massive biography of William Faulkner a few years ago, I was struck by the fact that some of his short stories were rejected even AFTER he won the Nobel Prize in Literature.  Granted, some would say that Faulkner never wrote anything good after GO DOWN, MOSES, but I think it shows you how tenacious writers must be.  We always die a little when rejection comes.

[expat_scand]

As a caveat, I am in the natural sciences, and there may be differences in praxis from social science journals. Second, my comment is based on the experience of thirty-some-odd papers as author/co-author and writing about 10-15 manuscript reviews per year. Science_expat listed the standard responses for science journals already and noted that ‘major revisions’ may or may not entail a re-review – usually by the original reviewers. On my desk I have a manuscript that I was just asked to re-review, one which I reviewed originally half a year ago. Major revisions are handled differently by different journals and editors I have observed. Only in a few cases have I been asked to re-review a manuscript and only a few times have I been asked to review a major revision or resubmission.

For me, if I give the recommendation for a major revision it really means just that. There are – according to my thinking (and I am clear to point out that this is my thinking) – serious flaws in the manuscript that require a major revision to correct. This could be the structure of the manuscript, where the so-called ‘red thread’ is not clearly visible through the text; this could be insufficient support of key arguments or insufficient data for stated arguments; and a number of other reasons. However, the manuscript contains a central core of valuable information that I think is worth being published – most obviously data that would be of greater interest – if the authors can make major improvements. In such cases I may write 3-4 pages of general and detailed comments that I think the authors should consider. I don’t take the time to write a review because of a lack of things to do or that I have time on my hands and am bored, so I honestly think these comments (but not necessarily all of them) would help the authors to produce a better paper in the end. If I disagree with an important point the authors make, I must defend my reasoning (a recommendation of rejection will still come with 2 pages of comments to justify my position and to possibly help the authors to produce a new manuscript for another journal). My aim is to frame my comments constructively, even if they can occasionally be tough. Should the authors disagree strongly with my comments, I hope it helps them to at least strengthen their argument(s) in their paper.

As an author I treat comments in this fashion; that is, the reviewers’ comments will help me to correct weaknesses either through suggestions of specific changes or through improved structuring to better justify a position that the reviewers may have disagreed with. If I feel a reviewer was wrong, then I must consider the possibility of having inadequately explained my point and I would explain that in my letter responding to the reviewers’ comments. Nonetheless, receiving 2-3 pages of comments from each of 2-3 reviewers (once even 5 reviewers) always feels a bit heavy. Even more so the first time I submitted a manuscript and received comments – I felt like it would take ages to deal with. But it didn’t. I know each and every paper was improved, even if only in minor ways, through the review process.

So, macchiavelli, do not be downcast. It is the nature of the peer-review process.

[polly_mer]

I want to comment that my manuscripts greatly improved after I became a reviewer (thanks to my former advisor who gave them my name when he was too busy).

If you can, take off your author hat and put on the editor/reviewer hat and be critical with yourself.

[science_expat]

macchiavelli, there is a lot of wisdom in the post of expat_scand.

SE