Two Types of Rejection
Rejections come from two distinct places, and mixing them up leads authors to learn the wrong lesson.
- Desk rejection — the editor says no before the manuscript goes to reviewers. It is usually quick, and typically concerns fit or completeness rather than quality.
- Rejection after review — reviewers have read the work and advised against publication. It takes longer and concerns the substance.
A desk rejection frequently means you picked the wrong venue, whereas a rejection after review means something in the work itself must change. The first is inexpensive to fix; the second is the more instructive one.
Desk Rejection Reasons
| Reason | How to prevent it |
|---|---|
| Out of scope | Study the aims and scope plus three recent articles before you submit |
| No fitting reviewer can be found | Pick a journal that has already published work using your method, not merely your topic |
| Incomplete submission | Go through the journal’s checklist and provide every declaration |
| Similarity score beyond the threshold | Quote and cite correctly, paraphrase properly, and run a check before submitting |
| Ethical approval or consent missing | Name the approving committee and describe consent for any research on humans or animals |
| Published already or being reviewed elsewhere | Submit to a single journal at a time |
| Unreadable English | Get the manuscript read by others first, since journals do not rewrite papers |
| Disregarding the journal’s format altogether | Follow the template; it shows you have engaged with the venue |
Each row here can be avoided, and together they explain a large share of all rejections.
Rejection After Review
After a full review, the grounds for a negative recommendation usually fall into just a few familiar patterns.
- No clear contribution. The work is competent yet adds nothing that is not already established.
- Conclusions go beyond the evidence. The data back a narrower claim than the paper makes.
- The method cannot answer the question. This is a design problem that revision cannot fix.
- Too little engagement with the literature. Earlier work is overlooked, or only supportive work is cited.
- Not reproducible. The method is described too sparsely for anyone to repeat it.
- Results at odds with the framing. The introduction pledges more than the findings provide.
Methodological Problems
Reviewers criticise methods most often, since the methods decide whether the rest of the paper can be trusted.
- Sample too small, or not justified, for the analysis carried out
- Sampling method not stated, leaving the population behind the findings unclear
- No comparison or control group where the claim needs one
- A statistical test unsuited to the data type or distribution
- Significance given without an effect size or measure of uncertainty
- Reliability and validity of the instrument left unaddressed
- Confounding factors unacknowledged
- Analysis that seems to have been chosen after the results were seen
Writing and Presentation
Presentation seldom causes rejection by itself, yet it makes every other weakness harder to excuse.
- An abstract that tells what was done instead of what was found
- An introduction that gets to the research gap only on page four
- Results and interpretation blended together
- Identical data repeated in the text, a table and a figure
- Figures unreadable at printed size, or axes missing units
- References that are incomplete, inconsistent or do not match the citations
- Limitations written as filler rather than as specifics
At-a-Glance Checklist
- Cause pinned downDesk or review
- Comments studiedCalmly, and twice
- Fixable problems fixedPrior to resubmitting elsewhere
- Better-suited journalSelected next
- No duplicate submissionJust one journal at a time
Deciding Your Next Step
| Situation | Next step |
|---|---|
| Out of scope | Pick a journal that fits better; rewrite the cover letter |
| Major method problems | Make the study stronger before resubmitting anywhere |
| Presentation problems | Improve the writing and figures, then submit elsewhere |
| Factual mistake by reviewers | Think about a reasoned appeal to the editor |
Handling Rejection Well
It is common
Most researchers get rejected many times.
Use the comments
Free expert feedback.
Wait before replying
Avoid emotional responses.
Keep moving
Revise, then submit to the next journal.
Recovering Constructively From a Manuscript Rejection Decision
Rejection is a normal part of academic life, and the way you respond shapes your next submission. These steps help you convert a disappointing decision into a stronger paper.
- Pause before replying. Give yourself a short cooling-off period before you reread the decision letter. Feedback often looks more reasonable once the first disappointment has settled.
- Sort comments by type. Divide reviewer remarks into issues about methods, writing, scope and presentation. This shows which problems need new work and which need only careful editing.
- Revise before resubmitting elsewhere. Reviewers at the next journal may be the same people or hold similar views. Address valid criticism instead of sending the identical file to a new editor.
- Ask a colleague for a pre-read. Before submitting again, have a trusted peer read the manuscript as a sceptical reviewer would. Early challenge is kinder than a second rejection.
Read feedback calmly, fix genuine weaknesses and test the revised paper with a colleague before sending it out again.
Questions Researchers Often Ask
What does desk rejection mean?
An editor’s decision, made before peer review, usually because of scope, format, similarity or missing files.
Is appealing a rejection worthwhile?
Only when you can point to a clear factual error in the review. If not, revise and send the paper to a better-suited journal.
Is it fine to send the same paper elsewhere after a rejection?
Yes, once it has been rejected, preferably after you have improved it using the reviewers’ comments.
Can a rejected paper go to a different journal?
Yes, preferably once revised in light of the comments.
Do I need to tell the new journal about the earlier rejection?
Usually not, unless the journal asks.
Your Paper's Journey at JMVRA, From Submission to Publication
- UploadPaper ID issued
- ScreenScope & similarity
- ReviewDouble-blind
- DecideEmail & SMS
- ReviseRespond point by point
- AcceptCopyright & fee
- ProduceObtainable DOI, on request
- PublishMonthly issue
How long review takes depends on the reviewers and on any revision required, so no set turnaround is promised; you are told of acceptance or rejection by email and WhatsApp.
Ethical Grounds
Revision cannot repair these, and some have consequences reaching beyond the single manuscript.
- Plagiarism, covering weak paraphrasing and self-plagiarism
- Duplicate or concurrent submission
- Fabricated or falsified data
- Altering images in a way that changes what the data show
- Ethical approval or consent absent for human or animal research
- Conflicts of interest that go undisclosed
- Authorship that fails to reflect actual contribution
The plagiarism guidelines describe how similarity is really assessed.
Interpreting a Rejection
- Wait. Read the decision, then set it aside for two days. First reactions are rarely helpful.
- Categorise. Group each remark as a factual error, a difference of opinion, or a request for clarification.
- Look for overlap. When two reviewers independently raise the same point, it is a genuine issue.
- Tell fatal from fixable. A flaw in design is not the same as a thin literature review.
- Take the value. Reviewer comments are expert advice on your work at no charge, and that is their worth even when the verdict is no.
What to Do Next
- Revise before sending elsewhere. Submitting the identical manuscript to the next journal squanders the reviews you have just received.
- Work down your shortlist instead of falling back to any journal that will accept it.
- Think about another article type — certain rejected papers suit short communications or case studies.
- Appeal only over a factual error. Disagreeing with a judgement is no ground; a misread method is.
- Ignore solicitations. Exploitative journals prey on authors who were recently rejected.
Reducing the Risk
- Select the journal before you finish writing
- Summarise your contribution in one sentence and check that every section supports it
- Write the methods for a stranger who has to repeat the work
- Make each claim only as strong as its evidence
- Cite work that disagrees with yours and explain why you differ
- Fill in every declaration before submitting
- Ask a colleague from outside your group to read it first
Also read Writing a Research Paper Reviewers Can Assess and the publication guidelines.
Ready to Publish? Submit to JMVRA
JMVRA is aligned with UGC's Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals.
JMVRA is a Transparent, Peer-Reviewed, Open Access Journal (Refereed Journal). Following the discontinuation of the UGC and UGC-CARE journal listing, and in alignment with the latest UGC-CARE recommendations and guidelines, JMVRA is aligned with UGC’s Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals.
Further reading on jmvra.org
Key Terms
Subjects and search phrases this article addresses.
Keep Reading on the JMVRA Blog
This article sits on the JMVRA journal blog, where practical guidance covering publishing, indexing, metrics and research integrity is written to be verifiable, not promotional.
Related Reading
Further reading on the same theme from the JMVRA blog.