Jacob, a PhD student at a renowned university in California, submits his manuscript to an open-access journal in his field. Within days, he receives a communication from the journal editor stating that the journal has rejected his manuscript. Luckily, his colleague Sophia, who has nearly finished her PhD research, is a regular reader of Cureus Journal blogs. One fine morning, Jacob meets Sophia at the university library. 

Jacob: “Hey Sophia, today morning, I received a rejection letter from a prominent journal in my field.” 

Sophia: “That’s ok, Jacob. I can certainly help you with this. What reasons did the journal cite?” 

Jacob: “I didn’t read the entire email. But you know what? I had worked so hard on my manuscript. Why did they reject it?” 

Sophia: “Well, honestly, it’s not about how many hours you put into manuscript drafting.” 

Jacob: “Then what exactly is it about, Sophia?” 

Sophia: “Let me explain. Meanwhile, please do not associate any negativity with this experience. In fact, this legitimate feedback can help you grow as a researcher.” 

Do you look forward to publishing in peer-reviewed journals? In today’s blog post, let us go over the most common reasons for manuscript rejection. Let us also discuss strategies to avoid journal rejection. The whole idea here is to share insights with Jacob, Sophia, and other manuscript authors, and to facilitate their publishing journey. Did you know that even the most distinguished academicians from around the world have faced journal rejection at some point? 

The ‘Manuscript Rejection Team’ 

Contrary to what the heading claims, journals do not recruit manuscript rejection teams. They only reject manuscripts that do not satisfy certain clearly identified criteria. Common reasons include bad study design, inconclusive results, poor methodology, plagiarism, compromised ethics, and more. Therefore, manuscript authors must make it a point to thoroughly review various journal submission guidelines before attempting submission.  

Manuscripts that fail to demonstrate compliance with the identified criteria get rejected at an early stage, even before undergoing editorial or peer review. This is referred to as “desk rejection.” Manuscripts that pass this stage sometimes get rejected outright during editorial or peer review. Such rejections are called “editorial rejections” or “peer review rejections.”          

How to Avoid Journal Rejection  

Manuscripts face rejection when they are not in good compliance with the journal-identified guidelines. For instance, at Cureus Journals, it is our policy to reject “mini-reviews,” simply because they do not do sufficient justice to the respective fields of research. Moreover, because they fail to comply with a clearly identified key submission criterion, all “mini-reviews” get instantly desk rejected by Cureus Journals.  

The following is a list of the eleven most cited reasons for journal rejection, and the recommended solutions.

---

Problem: The study is outside the scope of the journal  

Solution: Make sure your manuscript presents research that is well within the scope of the target journal. For instance, submitting a study titled “Labor Reforms for Information Technology Professionals” to the Cureus Journal of Computer Science is not a particularly clever strategy. 

---

Problem: The study is not of significant interest to the journal’s target audience  

Solution: Read recent articles published in your target journal and ask yourself the following question: “Will the target audience of this journal benefit from my research?” 

---

Problem: The study is ill-suited for publication (e.g., it has a faulty study design) 

Solution: Study designs always need to be robust. For instance, an engineering study that aims to examine the hardness of a new concrete-based construction material, but which does not account for variables such as water content and temperature fluctuations, is ill-suited for publication. 

---

Problem: Formatting not in line with the published journal guidelines 

Solution: This is easy to fix. Simply review the journal submission guidelines for authors and ensure smooth compliance to avoid this extremely common type of rejection. 

---

Problem: Poor referencing and excessive self-citation 

Solution: Conduct a thorough literature survey and make sure you cover all key publications related to the topic under investigation. Cite your own papers only when necessary. Avoid self-citing to artificially inflate your citations (and/or to get promotions from your employer). 

---

Problem: Plagiarism, data falsification, data fabrication, image manipulation, etc. 

Solution: Why cheat? Research is all about identifying a burning problem and proposing an intelligent solution. By cheating, you fail to make any valid contributions to your respective fields of study. Non-compliance can lead not only to manuscript rejection but also to severe repercussions including but not limited to job loss, arrest by law enforcement, court sentencing, and more. At Cureus Journals, we blacklist manuscript authors involved in plagiarism, data fabrication, and other ethics-related issues. Did you know that a disgraced researcher from South Korea received a jail sentence in 2009? 

---

Problem: Compromised research ethics or lack of research integrity 

Solution: Ethics compliance is a mandatory requirement in research and publishing. For instance, if you submit research involving patients, healthy volunteers, animals, etc., you must seek the required approval(s) from the ethics committees concerned, even if your target journal is not from the field of medicine. On the other hand, failing to declare a clear conflict of interest (e.g., a researcher justifying the use of a product and selling it commercially at the same time without declaring a conflict of interest) shows poor research integrity.    

---

Problem: The presented research does not seem to address any existing research gap or add value 

Solution: Undertake a meticulous literature survey and identify a research gap. Design a meaningful research study to address this gap. It is important to note that not every manuscript needs to present groundbreaking research. However, every manuscript must add at least some value to the existing literature. Otherwise, it defeats the very purpose of publishing. Being inclusive, Cureus Journals accept meaningful research even if it is not expected to alter a field drastically. For instance, we even accept negative results (with sound methodologies, rigorous statistical analyses, etc.) and failed replications of controversial papers as they can add significant value to the respective fields of study. 

---

Problem: The materials and methods or methodology section leaves room for significant improvement 

Solution: Are your experiments reproducible? Would researchers be able to purchase the materials easily from the mentioned vendors? Did you harness the power of statistics? Did you use the right methodology? Many such questions need to be diligently addressed before submitting your manuscript for peer review. 

---

Problem: The presented results do not lead to the discussed conclusions 

Solution: Common problem areas include incomplete experiments, lack of rigour, low-quality data analyses, missing controls, etc. However, these problems can be easily fixed by planning your studies carefully. Presenting your research plan to peers and experienced researchers and soliciting their opinions in advance can help avoid these common publishing pitfalls.  

---

Problem: Nonsensical manuscripts generated using artificial intelligence (AI)   

Solution: In recent times, journals have received bizarre manuscripts that fail to make any sense whatsoever. For instance, a manuscript titled “The impact of plant growth on gamma-ray bursts, as observed from a star located 30 million light years away from the Milky Way” (presumably generated using AI) qualifies for instant rejection.  

---

Summary 

Uncle Ben’s advice to Peter Parker in the movie Spiderman (“With great power comes great responsibility”) holds good even in the world of academic publishing. Researchers can indeed make a difference, either by publishing groundbreaking research or by making incremental yet meaningful contributions to their respective fields of study (thus unleashing the power of research). Good researchers make effective use of these rare opportunities.  

In today’s blog, we reviewed the most common reasons for manuscript rejection. Hope you enjoyed reading this blog post. Make sure you attempt the quiz below.  

Key Takeaways 

• Review all journal submission guidelines carefully. 
• Avoid the most common mistakes made by manuscript authors. 
• Keep the above tips for manuscript acceptance handy.  
• Publish responsibly. 

---

Quiz for the Curious 

Why was Jacob’s manuscript rejected by his favorite journal? Identify all likely reasons. 

(A) Jacob did not incorporate any positive/negative controls in his experiments. 

(B) His results did not justify the presented conclusions. 

(C) The study had a major technical flaw.  

(D) All of the above. 

---

Answer: (D)